From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:18:29 GMT

In article <pjh.714307570@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <pjh.714232717@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>>>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>[stuff deleted]
>>>Are those writers whose works survive to the present day necessarily
>>>the_best_ writers or are they just the most popular.

>>Why not the best?  They're the ones whose language has been admired down
>>the ages; they're the ones whose language has served as a model.  

>_What_ they wrote has been admired down the ages, not necessarily
>_the_way_ they wrote.

Which writers might those be, then?  Anybody I can think of who's been
admired as a writer, i.e., whose prose is still read (as opposed to
summarized, restated elsewhere, etc.) has been admired for the prose.
That's why we keep it around.  With people like Addison, it's
practically the *only* thing.  After all, the foibles of Queen Anne's
time only go so far towards fascination or even tittilation.

>>Do we
>>get lots of complaints about Milton's grammar, or that of the KJV, or
>>that of Pope and Swift and Dickens?  Their language is exemplary, in
>>every sense of the word.

>Don't know about that but in another article I read a couple of
>moments ago somebody appeared to be complaining about the way Jane
>Austin wrote.

Well, if it was Jane Austen they meant, whoever said that needs a head
transplant.  I find Austen's writing to be sharp, observant, and unique
in the way it conveys varying levels of tongue-in-cheek at different
times.

She also seems to have had a very good ear for the language as spoken in
her time, or so linguists have told me.

>>>>>Does this mean that Shakespeare always wrote gramatically
>>>>>correct English? 

>>>>*This* doesn't mean it, but he did.  

>>>How do you know? What evidence have you?

>>By comparing it to any definition of the grammar of the English
>>language, I can see that  Shakespeare's usage is grammatical.  To be
>>sure, Shakespeare's own writing is part of the evidence that leads us to
>>formulate the grammar (and the rules of usage and style); but no
>>grammar, except for an arbitrary one, will find fault with his work.

>By this definition, how can he fail to be correct?

By producing exceptions found nowhere else, say, or ones that his
contemporaries might have commented on.  Doesn't happen, though.

>....

>>I guess "informal" and "conversational" have suddenly come to mean
>>"wrong."  News to me...

>That is not what I said. I meant that something which was formally
>correct was not "colloquial". 

ALERT! ALERT!  We have two meanings of "formal" on the loose.  

Most things that are colloquial *are* formally correct, in the sense of
"correct in their form."  Colloquial speech includes certain types of
simile, metaphor, etc., and many usages not found in, say, a business
letter.  But these usages are no less correct for being colloquial.  

So let's distinguish between the "formal" of a business letter and the
"formal" of grammatical form.

>A colloquial idiom would certainly be
>considered incorrect (or out of place if you prefer) in certain
>situations (as you point out below). 

Sure, but not for reasons of grammar.  Style, perhaps.

>Many colloquiallisms _are_
>gramatically incorrect - but I didn't claim it was wrong to use them
>(in cetain situations).

Which ones do you mean?  And how strictly do you mean "grammatically"?
(see postings on "grammar")

>>It might be inappropriate to use this or that usage in a formal business
>>letter or in a scholarly address or a textbook.  But that does not make
>>the usage incorrect in other settings.  

>>Some things, however, are indeed incorrect in all settings: those are
>>things that are ungrammatical.  Such as placing the article after the
>>noun.

>But some things which _are_ ungrammatical are colloquiallisms, like
>saying "you and I" instead of "you and me" or saying "should of"
>instead of "should've"

One at a time.  "You and I" as an objective is far older than the
formulation of rules about objectives, and has been idiomatic too long
to be considered ungrammatical.  It is, if you wish, an exception to the
rules; and since the rules are derived from observation (as opposed to
actual speech being derived from the rules), it's pointless to call this
ungrammatical.  It's just an idiom, and idioms have their own rules.
(Note distinction between "idiomatic" and "an idiom," btw.)

As for "should of," this is simply a matter of transcription.  *Writing*
it is incorrect, to be sure; and very few people do so.  But most people
elide the 'h' in "Should have", or at least don't stress it; this is
entirely natural, and happens in formal speech, too.  And I haven't
heard many people say "should of" with a real 'aw' sound for "of",
either.


>>Note also that almost all of the usages that people get all het up about
>>in this group are being used in *informal* speech or writing.  

>True but I'm afraid I don't see what point you are making.

Simple: why get so het up about the formalities of informal speech?
This can only happen if one makes the mistake of assuming that there is
one fixed, immutable standard for *all* speech and writing, which is
"proper" and "Correct" and all that; and that all deviations indicate
poor education or tooth decay or something.  The assumption that
communication, or the fiber of the lanaguage itself, or whatever, is
harmed by colloquialisms or illogical (but nonetheless standard) usages
is what I mean by the spirit of FORTRAN: an error causes the whole
compiler to stop, and unless someone writes a new compiler, usage never
changes.

>....

>>>But logically speaking, it _is_ incorrect since the subject pronoun
>>>"I" is used where an object pronoun is required.

>>Grammar isn't based on any formal logic.  Grammar is a set of rules
>>evolved over time; 

>When I said "logically speaking" I really meant "according to the
>rules of grammar". I suppose I should have been more careful.

Yes, that *is* a big distinction.  But the rules of grammar also permit
idioms, and "Between you and I " is a very old idiom.

>>and the evolution of "you and I" as an undeclinable
>>unit has simply not proceeded the way the rest of the pronoun-usage
>>rules have.  It is an idiom, and a  long-established one, and idioms
>>simply march to their own rules.  

>Precisely. It is an idiom - a colloquiallism - which does not mean it
>is grammatical.

WHOA!  "Idiom" and "colloquialism" are NOT, repeat NOT the same thing.
An idiom is a set of words that, taken together, means something quite
different from the individual words taken separately.  This has nothing
to do with the circumstances of speech; idioms are used in formal speech
and writing all the time.

>.....

>>Well, then, where are all the *other* "colloquial" usages?  (You can
>>also find a lot of "you and me" in Shakespeare, by the way.)

>So he was inconsistent aswell?

No, he was varied.  Just because one usage is correct doesn't mean I
have to choose it and not another correct one all the time!

*ESPECIALLY* if we're talking about a poet with a sensitive ear.

English is a big, big language -- perhaps the biggest of all. Often
there are several correct ways to say a thing; sometimes you can use
"that" or "which" or "who" interchangeably, for instance.  Is it
inconsistency or merely normal variety when the KJV has Jesus saying,
"Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God
those things that are God's."  (Matt. 22:21.)  The answer is: variety,
of course.  Who cares?  What difference does it make?  In this case, one
can't even speak about "limiting," because "those" already does the
limiting.

>>Now let's look at Shakespeare's audience again.  It consisted mainly of
>>the nobility and citizenry of London -- not the common, uneducated
>>rabble.  

>I think there was quite a lot of the "common, uneducated rabble" in
>his audience, actually. (At least, according to the various people I
>have heard talking about it.)

I doubt it.  I doubt that very many peasants ever saw a Shakespeare play.  
Tradesmen and craftsmen, perhaps; but those were not the rabble.  I
expect thatthe literacy rate among his audience was many, many times
that of the general populace.

>>The language that these people expected was, quite simply, the
>>London dialect of their time, the most advanced form of English in
>>existence.  Shakespeare did not cut his audience any slack, either: he
>>peppered his plays with hundreds of loanwords, new coinages, and other
>>fanciful things.  He did not write down to anyone; his style is
>>complicated in the extreme.

>His "style" varies according to the social standing of his characters.

OK.  What about it? Did the tradesmen in the audience not come to hear
the king's speech?  Did the nobility not come to hear the Fool?  I don't
follow.

>Some of his more "noble" characters spoke in verse while others speak
>in very "rough" words.  He had something for all classes of people to
>identify with.

Excuse me, but "identifying" is only a small part of watching and
understanding a play.  I may identify with the hero in a movie, but I
*do* want to know what the villain and everybody else are saying, no?  Shake-
speare's language was comprehensible to all who attended his plays, and
I've never seen any evidence to the contrary.

>>>>>Again, there are instances of authors/playwrights who appear to
>>>>>deliberately use the language incorrectly to provide dramatic effect.

>>>>a) Shakespeare was not one of those, except in the situations I
>>>>mentioned;

>>>>b) this example is not one of those situations;

>>>>c) Shakespeare's knowledge of correct/incorrect usage was entirely
>>>>intuitive, as was everybody else's in his time.

>>>So he wasn't necessarily a "good" - i.e. grammatically correct -
>>>author, which is the point I was originally trying to make.

>>No, he WAS necessarily grammatically correct.  Because we HAVE no
>>definition of "grammatical correctness" aside from "what skilled
>>speakers and writers say and have said."  What concept of "grammatical
>>correctness" do you propose?  How would you derive it, if not by
>>studying the history and present state of the language?

>Who says Shakespeare was a skilled writer? 

What skill did he lack?  What definition of "skilled writer" would *you*
use to exclude him???  If you're not bowled over by his use of language
in, say, Sonnet 74 or MacBeth's last speech, then I wonder why you're
discussing usage and style and so on in the first place!  

A writer writes.  A skilled writer writes skilfully.  Shakespeare's
skill has impressed, if not intimidated, just about every writer since.


Now, if by "skilled writer" you mean "a writer who knows Strunk and
White and the Chicago Manual of Style inside out," then you may have a
question there.

>He is merely one whose writing has survived. 


Dozens of playwrights from his time wrote plays that have survived.
Shakespeare is not "merely" one of them; he is one whose writing style
and skill have kept his works on the stage through most of the
intervening 400 years, and whose writing has served as an exemplar for
all who followed.  

You want to see some writing that "merely survived"?    There's plenty
of it out there.  And lots of it stinks.

>You said above that that his knowledge was
>intuitive. How many expressions in English are counter intuitive?

Depends on whose intuition you poll.  Besides, what's your point?  I
meant "intuitive" in the sense of "not having been learned from a book,"
which is easy to prove, as the first English grammar was written some
time after his death.  Nor do we know of a school that taught it.
You're using a different meaning of "(counter-)intuitive."  

>Remember the expression 'the exception which "proves" the rule'
>(leaving aside what was actually meant by "prove"). If you define as
>correct "the language as used by those ancient writers whose works
>survive" 

Now, where did I do that?  That's not much of a definition.
Shakespeare's works not only survive, but were considered to be superb
in his day (including the language), and have been considered so ever
since -- for their language.  They are also consistent with other things
we know about usage in his day.  

>then, of course, Shakespeare has to be correct. This is as
>useful as saying that gravity pulls things down and definging down as
>the direction gravity pulls things. I do not think your definition of
>correctness is correct. 

Well, now that I've explained it, could I get a second opinion?  Either
you were caricaturing my definition or you don't know much about
Shakespeare's reception history.

>The language of Shakespeare, Dickens et cetera
>is, while understandable, verry different to uors.

In some ways.  Not in its grammar, though; nouns, verbs, and the like
function the way they did back then.  

Besides, one of the arguments of those who would elevate current usage
to "correct grammar" is past usage!  I only bring this up because I find
it useful to know what the history of usage actually is!  Many people
attack this or that usage for being new, barbaric, whatever.  Behold: it
turns out to have a long and continuous history.  At that point, of
course, some of the "purists" turn around and come up with some other
criterion for excluding the usage...

>>In general, native speakers simply don't make mistakes of grammar.

>I simply do not believe this statement. Of course they do. Look above
>in what I have been writing, I am sure you will find several
>grammatical errors. 

Well, your spelling (i.e., your typing) may need a bit of work, but, no,
I can't find any errors of grammar.  "Different to" is a British usage,
and one occasionally criticized as informal, but it's not ungrammatical
in any way.

In the strict sense of grammar as the structure of the language, no,
native speakers do *not* make mistakes of grammar.  They may say things
at variance with formal usage, or may speak a dialect with rules quite
different from that of the upper class, but people speak grammatically.

>People are _taught_ grammar (or not as the case
>may be in this country) they do not know it "instinctively". 

Stuff and nonsense.  Are you telling me that no illiterate ever spoke
well?  You learn grammar by learning to speak, and very few people learn
to read first.  You learn the structure of your mother tongue by
learning to speak it, period.  Nobody has to tell you what a verb is
before you can use one!

In fact, take a hundred good writers and speakers, and ask them the
definition of "adverb."  Most of them will get it wrong, I bet.

>Listen to
>a child learning to talk - it will make several grammatical mistakes
>which will (sometimes) be corrected and added to its knowledge of what
>is correct and what isn't. What happens when the "correcter" doesn't
>know what is correct? The child learns an incorrect usage. So of

Au contraire!  After a certain age, people do NOT speak baby-talk.  They
learn by listening to what other people say, and by finding out what
communicates well and what doesn't.  Very little of a child's language
knowledge comes from correction; long years of observation and
experiment have demonstrated this.  Correction (when done kindly)
doesn't hurt, but it has very little effect.  There is a huge literature
on the subject; I suggest you read a little of it.

>course native speakers make grammatical errors (in my experience, they
>are sometimes worse at it than people who learn the language as a
>foreign language).

What errors *are* those?  Are they errors of grammar?  Or are they
errors of style?   Are they perhaps variants of dialect?  Those are not
grammatical errors by any means.  Are they colloquialisms?  Again, those
are not errors, either of grammar or usage.  You may view the colloquial
as a dialect or a style; but it is not simply a pile of errors.

>>Those learning the language later, do.  

>Sometimes. Sometimes they merely apply rules too rigourously or use

That's an error, then.  Grammar isn't a bunch of rules; it's the actual
structure of the language.  Rules are simplifications that make
explaining the structure easier; they are not the structure itself!

>rules which are valid for their language but not for the foreign one.

Also an error.

>>There may be non-standard
>>usages, unusual or inappropriate styles, etc.; but, by any reasonable
>>definition, Shakespeare's grammar was necessarily correct.

>By definition, of course.

No, *according* to any reasonable definition.  I await your evidence to
the contrary!

>....

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english