Talk:I (pronoun)

message: hm..no comment on why "I" is capitalized? that is poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.173.248 (talk)  16:21, 18 November 2007  
* Indeed. I don't capitalize it, but i'm glad to finally know why everyone else does. --Jerzy•t 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In German, only the formal second person "Sie" is capitalized, but that's simply to distinguish it from the third person plural form "sie", which is all the same. However, some people capitalize the informal second person "du" in letters, but that would be wrong anywhere else. I agree that it shouldn't be interpreted too much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letkhfan (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for a thorough explanation. Even if we cannot cite this, we can cite Etymonline, or the Oxford English Dictionary directly (from which Etymonline usually sources its info, at least in part). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casing 

message: "me wouldn't believe all you read"? What's that supposed to mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.194.50 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish? 

message: It's not clear with the mutation of the pronunciation.
ic [ik] ---> i [i] ---> I [i] --?--> I [ai]
If you use the everyday word [ik] or [i], how can you all at once begin to say [ai] ?  -- 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant sound change here is the Great Vowel Shift. The modern pronunciation /aɪ/ goes back to Middle English /iː/, hence the spelling. The direct Old English predecessor is probably ih, a variant of ic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Mohit upadhyay is one man who wants to take a lot of knowledge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.8.177 (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  <small><small>mohit upadhyay</small></small> 

message: This article spouts nonsense about "nominative" and "accusative". It needs to be rewritten in terms appropriate for a modern encyclopedia, for example as in this clear explanation from Practical English Usage by Michael Swan:
 'In informal English, we use object forms not only as the objects of verbs and prepositions, but also in most other cases where the words do not come before verbs as their subjects. Object forms are common, for example, in one-word answers and after be:"Who said that?" - "(It was) him"; "Who's that?" -"(It's) me". In a more formal style, we often prefer to use subject form + verb where possible: "Who said that?" - "He did" (but not "he")'.
--Espoo (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses the terminology used in the cited source, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), more rigorously stressing the difference between form and function, which are conflated somewhat by subjective and objective - and Swan's attempt object form. As Huddleston and Payne explain "the nominative is not restricted to subject function ... and the accusative is likewise not restricted to object function." The differences in terminology are explained at some length in the explanatory footnote, and various terms are introduced at the beginning of the section "Case forms". --Boson (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  amateur and incorrect presentation 

message: At first it was lowercase, but it looked sad, so it began to be capitalized.http://blog.dictionary.com/whycapitali/
Benjamin (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misrepresentation of what the source says. No one rational says that the letter "i" looked sad, nor that "I" looked happier. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Look at it: i. How sad."Benjamin (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

text: @Benjaminikuta: Nonsense is not left to fester in articles while people debate whether a single blog is sufficiently reliable to support a highly novel if not absurd statement. Please do not waste any more time on this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I see it has been restored. The statement in the source is apparently jocular, rather than encyclopedic. It should be removed. --Boson (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalized 

message: Why nothing at all about „I” in philosophy, psychology and spirituality? </br>2001:A61:1298:E001:1D63:9899:FB5B:6CA9 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those may be great things to add, and perhaps you should add them. First, though, consider whether they are really about the pronoun I or whether they are about the self or some other related idea.--Brett (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why nothing at all about „I” in philosophy, psychology and spirituality?