- Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and I.
- Andy is going to Paris before me.
1 seems correct because what is implied s “before Carol and I go to Paris”.
2 seems correct because the objective (I) follows the preposition (“before”), which I thought was the rule…
What’s the story?
Rewrite the first sentence (you can ignore the other object as it stands alone)…
The person Betty and Andy and are going to Paris before is (me/I) - which seems correct now?
Sentence 1 is incorrect because there is NO implied predicate.
‘You walked through the door before me’ - NOT ‘You walked through the door before I [walked through the door]’.
There is no implied extra part of the sentence. ‘Before x’ is a simple case of a preposition and accusative.
‘Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and me’ is correct.
This error is so widespread among Americans that I conclude that it is taught incorrectly in schools. The simple way to test for correct usage is to drop the second person and see if it still makes sense -
Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and I.
Betty and Andy are going to Paris before I.
It should also work the other way around, although we were all taught to put ourselves last -
Betty and Andy are going to Paris before me and Carol (go to Berlin)
Betty and Andy are going to Paris before I and Carol (go to Berlin)
When you get home, knowing that your nearest and dearest is somewhere around, do you call out, “Hi dear - it’s I”.
Also, which sounds more correct to you?
- Betty and Andy are going to Paris before we.
- Betty and Andy are going to Paris before us.
Because you could use the same logic to say that sentence 1 was correct: Betty and Andy are going to Paris before we [are going to Paris]. Except that it’s not 
This seems to be approaching universality, and it may be too late to close the stable door on it.
I have always assumed it is because so many people had it drummed into them that it was wrong to use “Me and X” as the subject of a sentence (“common” in both senses of the word!), that the idea got about that it had to be “X and I” in all contexts.
But there are all sorts of dialect variations. I remember someone claiming to have heard a girl somewhere in East Anglia say indignantly to her friend “Why do 'er wave at we? Us don’t know she!”.
I agree with this. ‘Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and I go’ is also correct and, perhaps, slightly clearer.
What is unclear about the “and me” construction that is clarified by “and I”?
You left off the word “go”.
With “Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and me” it can be a bit unclear whether you are saying that Andy and Betty are just sitting in front of you and Carol in a bus traveling to Paris, or if Andy and Betty are going to Paris this year and you and Carol are going next year.
Betty and Andy are going to Paris in front of Carol and me.
Betty and Andy are going to Paris before Carol and I go. Leaving off the word “go” does not make the grammar incorrect.
Yes. Although I do not use the contraction: “It is I”. I like the implied formality of the full statement: “It is I that you hear entering.”, but since the question, though unstated, is already known “Who’s that?”, the short statement is sufficient.
I agree. As far as I can tell, it does stem from the Always use “X and I” form for subjects.
I’m not sure whether it’s too late to close the door, though. It’s just a hypercorrection, after all, and education can remedy it. On the other hand, most kids don’t really care about prepositions and their objects, and they carry their non-standard usages into their adult lives.
And then there’s the wildcard–are school teachers teaching that there is an implied predicate? I seem to recall being taught that in high school, but that was a long time ago.
I disagree. “Before” is not necessarily a preposition. Sometimes it’s a subordinating conjunction.
In “Betty and Andy are going to Paris before February,” the “before” acts as a preposition, with “February” as its object.
In “Betty and Andy are going to Paris before they get married,” the “before” acts as a subordinating conjunction, with “they get married” as the subordinate clause.
Your “You walked through the door before I/me” could go either way. “Before” could be a preposition (meaning “in front of”), in which case “me” is correct; or it could be a subordinating conjunction, in which case “I [do]” is correct.
At least, such is my understanding. I am not a professional grammarian. (But I did diagram a buttload of sentences in high school English.)
In the uncontracted form, “it is I” is indeed what is taught as being preferential, as we are taught that the subjective (nominative) case and not the objective (accusative) case should follow a linking verb.
That said, you’ll never hear me use “it is I” except when I’m putting on a faux posh way of talking for effect. The problem now is, though, hypercorrection. Speakers have this rule so engrained in their brains that think constructions like “Carol and I” are always preferred to “Carol and me,” no matter the grammatical context. One that particularly irks me is the phrase “between you and I,” which, in all the cases I could think of, should be “between you and me” using conservative, traditional grammar rules.
I’m not sure that helps. The traditional answer would be “I” there. But I’d bet to most people that sounds a bit odd.
You’re correct. That’s why there’s disagreement here. It could be used either way.
In the example in the OP, the order of events is the point of the sentence. The fact that Carol and I are going to Paris is not being subordinated; it does not further describe Betty and Andy’s trip. Just my $0.02. I’m not a professional grammarian either.
Noun phrases with I are always subjects. When it’s an object or it’s governed by a preposition, it isn’t a subject, and it uses me.
So what’s lacking in education is a clear knowledge of what is an object, what makes it different from a subject, and how prepositions work.
When English speakers learn languages with noun declensions/cases like e.g. Latin, Finnish, German, Hungarian, Russian, you hear complaints about having to learn their case system, when good old English is free of declensions—wait. The pronouns still use the old case system inherited from Anglo-Saxon. English does have case declensions—and we suck at them! Maybe if we had to learn cases for all nouns like in Old English, the use of them for pronouns would come intuitively to English students. Instead of pronouns being relegated to this weird corner of grammar surviving from ancient Germanic declension that isn’t fully explained to students because it doesn’t apply anywhere else?
This
Subordination is a mechanical function of the (subordinating) conjunction. It does not necessarily have anything to do with the propositional force of the semantics. If a clause begins with a subordinating conjunction, it’s a subordinate clause–by definition. That simply means that the clause is grammatically dependent upon another (independent) clause. It cannot stand alone and be considered a unitary sentence.
In any case, Thudlow Boink (correctly) said that ***the other clause ***was subordinate, not vice versa. The conjunction before subordinates (in a strictly grammatical sense) the clause which follows.
Yes, the adverbial clause (with the subordinating conjunction before) serves to convey the sequence of events. That’s the propositional nature of the sentence. The subordination, however, is part of its grammatical character.
Does this imply that we should use the subjective case instead of the objective case in this particular subordinate clause?