Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: I'm rather puzzled...

I'm rather puzzled by this excerpt from a review of "The Cambridge Grammar
of the English Language":
"So the Cambridge Grammar's editors note that sentences like "They invited
my partner and I to lunch" are "regularly used by a significant proportion
of speakers of Standard English... they pass unnoticed in broadcast speech
all the time". They explain convincingly why "my partner and me" would be no
more grammatical; there is no better reason to require English pronouns
always to comply with Latin inflection for the accusative case than there is
regularly to hear English verse according to Graeco-Roman templates such as
the "iambic pentameter" which have been misleading our ears since the 19th
century."
(
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,753669,00.html
)
I knew that some English native speakers mistakenly use "my partner and me"
as a subject; I knew as well that with "to be" and the other copulative
verbs the nominative is required, like in "It is I who have always to pay",
though this sentence is pretty rare and maybe formal.
Well, I knew all this, but I also believed that "my partner and me" was the
only possible form to use as a direct object [1]. The authors of the Grammar
even assert that "my partner and me", which in this sentence is a direct
object, would be wrong! [2]
Who can clarify this for me?
[1] I recognize that comparisons between English and Italian are not always
possible, but for example "Hanno invitato io e te a pranzo" is quite wrong,
in my book.
[2] Amongst other things: does "no more grammatical" mean "no longer
grammatical" or "not more grammatical", that is to say "as grammatical as
'my partner and I'"?
Bye, FB

 'my partner and I'"?
not more grammatical

 I'm rather puzzled
Perché ti sei suddiviso in frammenti da incastrare l'uno nell'altro? Non
potevi restare tutto d'un pezzo?

 (
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,753669,00.html
)
In questo paragrafo (cap. 1, par. 2.2 'Spurious external justifications),
gli autori intendono sottolineare l'inadeguatezza e l'illegittimità
degli argomenti che si basano sull'analogia tra concetti (e settori)
grammaticali *diversi* (e, per così dire, incommensurabili).
È cioè *illegittimo* trarre certe conclusioni ragionando per
*analogia*: poiché nel caso di un *singolo* pronome accade questo,
allora, anche nel caso di due elementi coordinati (uno dei quali sia un
pronome) accadrà la stessa cosa.  In realtà, non è affatto detto che
accada/debba accadere la stessa cosa.
Vi SONO dei casi in cui una coppia di elementi coordinati, per il solo 
fatto di essere, appunto, coordinati, si comporta in modo diverso da come
si comporta il *singolo* elemento (non coordinato).  Il che significa
che *non* siamo autorizzati a fare deduzioni basate sull'analogia. 
In altre parole, per poter dire qualcosa di significativo/sensato, dal
punto di vista grammaticale, sulla coppia di elementi coordinati,
avremo bisogno di *altri* argomenti (più validi/seri).
Saluti (spero) esplicativi e... nottivaghi :-)
(H)istoreo
-- 
Per redigere questo messaggio non è stata usata alcuna tecnologia Mafio$oft.

avremo bisogno di *altri* argomenti (più validi/seri).
e tutto questo in italiano come si dice ?
:-)

 :-)
Ti dico ciň che ho capito io. La frase iniziale era "They invited my partner
and I to lunch". Gli autori, secondo quanto riferisce Istoreo - ma non c'č
da fidarsi di quello lě! (faccina sorridenterrima) -, spiegano che, sebbene
sia vero che il complemento oggetto debba essere all'accusativo, quando
abbiamo due elementi coordinati non possiamo dire, per il solo fatto che
essi siano coordinati, che essi debbano essere entrambi all'accusativo. In
pratica, penso che "my partner and I" sia, secondo Huddleston e Pullum, un
unico direct object. (Istoreo: ho capito bene?)
Poi, dico io, una spiegazione del genere per giustificare una brutta frase
(proprio in virtů di "my partner and I" quale direct object) che a mio
avviso č sbagliata o comunque meno giusta, non era necessaria...
Ciao, FB

 essi siano coordinati, che essi debbano essere entrambi all'accusativo. In
Esatto.  Cedo loro la parola.
<cit.>
The '%' symbol is again used to mark the [b] (1) example as typically
used by some speakers of Standard English but not others, though this
time it is not a matter of regional variation.  The status of the
construction in [b] differs from that of "It's me", which is undisputedly
normal in informal usage, and from "Me and Kim saw her leave", which is
unquestionably non-standard.  What is different is that examples like
[b] (1) are regularly used by a significant proportion of speakers
of Standard English, and not generally thought by ordinary speakers
to be non-standard; they pass unnoticed in broadcast speech all the time. 
Prescriptivists, however, condemn the use illustrated by [3b] (1),
insisting that the 'correct' form is They invited my partner and me to
lunch.  And here again they seek to justify their claim that [3b] is
ungrammatical by an implicit analogy, this time with other situations
found in English, such as the example seen in [a] (2).  In [a] the
pronoun functions by itself as direct object of the verb and invariably 
appears in accusative case.  What is different in [b] is that the direct
object of the verb has the form of a coordination, not a single pronoun. 
Prescriptivists commonly take it for granted that this difference is 
irrelevant to case assignment.  They argue that because we have an
accusative in [a] we should also have an accusative in [b], so the
nominative 'I' is ungrammatical.  
But why should we simply assume that the grammatical rules for case
assignment cannot differentiate between a coordinated and a non-coordinated
pronoun? As it happens, there is another place in English grammar where
the rules are sensitive to this distinction -- for virtually all speakers,
not just some of them:
	[4] a. I don't know if you're eligible.
            b. *I don't know if she and you're eligible.
The sequence "you are" can be reduced to "you're" in [a], where 'you' is
subject, but not in [b], where the subject has the form of a coordination
of pronouns.  This shows us not only that a rule of English could apply
differently to pronouns and coordinated pronouns, but that one rule
actually does.  If that is so, then a rule could likewise distinguish
between [3a] and [3b] (1).  The argument from analogy is illegitimate. 
Whether [3b] is treated as correct Standard English or not (a matter
that we take up in Ch. 5, $16.2.2), it cannot be successfully argued
to be incorrect simply by virtue of analogy with [3a].
 
</cit.>
(1) Il maledetto esempio che contiene "my partner and I". 
(2) La frase "They invited me to lunch" (nessuna coordinazione).
Saluti asettici e imparziali,
