# Between you and I, what's up with the misuse of "I"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 2, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748 "2016-09-02T01:13:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/41 "2016-09-02T17:53:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Furthermore, you may be thinking of the fact that “which” is frequently, albeit incorrectly, used to introduce restrictive clauses, as in your “apples” sentence. But the opposite is decidedly not true: according to [the Oxford Dictionary](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which) and other sources and the instinct of every literate native English speaker, “Non-restrictive clauses can be introduced by _which, whose, who_, or _whom_, **but you should never use _that_ to introduce them** ”. Out of curiosity, when was the last time in your academic career when you were actually taught any sort of grammar like that? I’m guessing it wasn’t sixth or seventh grade when most of us were last exposed to that sort of thing. In my opinion, that’s probably the biggest reason for this kind of thing- people are taught a lot of this stuff early in life, and they make indifferent grades on it, and then never see it again. And we already know that most people don’t read very much or very often, so they are unlikely to learn grammar by osmosis by repeatedly seeing things written correctly over the subsequent decades. Let’s say someone gets to 45 and has been talking in their particular vernacular their entire life, and for some reason, they’re required to write several sentences out that aren’t in texting lingo or their usual semi-literate Facebook posts or emails. How likely is it that they’ll remember something about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses from a class they made a C in during seventh grade back in 1985? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/42 "2016-09-02T19:19:31Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > **wolfpup** : You are right that shared conventions are important. My whole point is that you refuse to learn the conventions people _actually_ share and instead _demand_ they share a set of conventions most of them have never heard of, and, indeed, would not understand. How is that more correct? By what standard? By _whose_ standard? The OED is a useful book, but it isn’t the arbiter of anything other than its own house style. No other book is any more authoritative, nor is any other person or group; in fact, no such body or group could even theoretically exist, given that English is a natural language. > > Constructed languages are defined; natural languages are discovered. Again, those are all excellent points that I don’t dispute, except that I would regard the OED and its lesser equivalents as a lot more than just “useful”. I think we all recognize that these sorts of reference works have two different important purposes that in a sense are almost diametrically opposed. The first is to be the definitive record of the present language – what words mean, how they are connected to express ideas, the rules of usage, etc. This is the prescriptive element. The second is to track how the language is evolving – the new words that arise and the new meanings for old words, new expressions and usages, etc. This is the descriptive element. And they’re both important. No one disputes that. Sure, I tend to lean prescriptivist, but I fully recognize that language evolves, that a language used by large populations distributed over broad geographies tends to develop dialects, and that dialects have a standing in their own right and deserve to be documented and studied, and all the other things that descriptivist-leaning observers are always going on about, as if no one else was aware of it. There are not two “sides” here but merely a continuum, and differing opinions on where we should draw the line on what constitutes correct vs. incorrect usage. As **LSLGuy** rightly points out, and as I did earlier, too, there is a crucial purpose to prescriptive formalisms, and that is clarity of communication. Linguists do tend to lean descriptivist, and they may be fascinated by things like local dialects, but most will not hesitate to slam stupid and ignorant usage, especially when it’s contrived and pretentious like many pronouncements of officialdom and contemporary business-speak. > [@bump](#): > > Out of curiosity, when was the last time in your academic career when you were actually taught any sort of grammar like that? I’m guessing it wasn’t sixth or seventh grade when most of us were last exposed to that sort of thing. > > In my opinion, that’s probably the biggest reason for this kind of thing- people are taught a lot of this stuff early in life, and they make indifferent grades on it, and then never see it again. And we already know that most people don’t read very much or very often, so they are unlikely to learn grammar by osmosis by repeatedly seeing things written correctly over the subsequent decades. > > Let’s say someone gets to 45 and has been talking in their particular vernacular their entire life, and for some reason, they’re required to write several sentences out that aren’t in texting lingo or their usual semi-literate Facebook posts or emails. How likely is it that they’ll remember something about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses from a class they made a C in during seventh grade back in 1985? The technical description given by the OED may use terms that are unfamiliar to many, but it’s not the technical terminology that’s important but the principle it conveys, a principle that I think is innately recognized by most native English speakers. To take my example sentence, “The cars, that were well cared for, were in good condition after ten years”, to my ear this is intensely jarring and just screams “what the hell are those commas doing there?” Or if the person is trying to convey the idea that someone had a bunch of cars and cared well for all of them, why the hell is he using “that” instead of “which”?" Perhaps I’m wrong, but surely it’s not just me that recognizes this kind of jarring anomaly without even necessarily being able to explain why it’s wrong without looking it up. And if you do look it up, there are dictionaries and grammar guides all over teh Interwebs that are pretty much consistent on these particular usage rules, so it’s hardly obscure. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/43 "2016-09-02T22:27:28Z")
n/m ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/44 "2016-09-03T00:12:38Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Till the stars fall from the sky. _ **'Til** _ the stars fall from the sky. It’s a contraction. > [@wolfpup](#): > > … the misuse of commas – sometimes sprinkling redundant commas around like decoration – is one of the most common writing mistakes. I will have you know that each and every one of my superfluous commas is there for a reason: as an indication of a slight pause between clauses. Semicolons go between independent clauses when a full stop (period) seems excessive, and indicate a longer pause than a comma. Just be glad I don’t use the Victorian colon that indicates a pause longer than a semicolon but shorter than a period. These are all handy when you read to your family around the fireplace. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/45 "2016-09-03T00:19:28Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > _ **'Til** _ the stars fall from the sky. It’s a contraction. … No it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/46 "2016-09-03T00:28:38Z")
Technically, that should be “No, it isn’t,” but as the clauses are short I’ll let it ride. It is a contraction that some lazy layabouts used so often that some frustrated prescriptivists gave up fighting it, but not me. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/47 "2016-09-03T00:37:00Z")
Well, thanks for correcting me twice on issues that required no correction. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/48 "2016-09-03T01:06:14Z")
I and my Bobby McGuy. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/49 "2016-09-03T01:13:16Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Well, thanks for correcting me twice on issues that required no correction. There was no requirement, that’s true. But the correction was warranted. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/50 "2016-09-03T01:26:14Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > _ **'Til** _ the stars fall from the sky. It’s a contraction. You might want [to read the usage note here.](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/till?s=t) Or, let me help: > [@](#): > > Till 1and until are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till(or until) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till) the rains began. Till is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled 'till. 'Til is usually considered a spelling error, though widely used in advertising: Open 'til ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/51 "2016-09-03T01:44:14Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Well-said. At the same time: > > Consistent conventions between participants is like looking at one another through a clean window. Inconsistent conventions between participants is like looking at one another through a dirty window. The broad view is discernable but the details are ambiguous or missing altogether. > > When English profs talk only to English profs and hillbillies talk only to hillbillies then each group will communicate well enough for their purposes. But neither group can accurately predict the effect of their words on the other group; the window is so cloudy it can scarcely be seen through. > > As well, different groups have different ideas of what constitutes “… well enough for their purposes.” I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of listening to somebody who’s really uneducated or inarticulate try to resolve a customer service problem. In this case the customer’s habit of very imprecise (non-)thinking, sloppy word choice, and ambiguous inconsistent sentence structure precludes them from successfully communicating anything beyond frustration and anger to the returns clerk at WalMart. > > In some egalitarian moral sense we can say the speech of the customer is as good as that of the clerk. In a utilitarian sense that’s not quite so true. > > If language is a tool for human interaction it can be either a well-balanced katana or a rusty length of bent wrought iron. Commonality of standards, arbitrary though they ultimately are, is what puts the fine edge on language and sets the upper limit on quality of communication. You / we / all y’all can’t make accurate unambiguous complex communication out of fuzzy words and fuzzy grammar. People can be foggy in any language and clear in any language, or dialect thereof. If there’s a lack of clarity between two people due to them not sharing a common dialect/language, why do we have to insist that only _one_ of them is speaking correctly? _That_ is what I’m arguing against here: There’s nothing inherently better or worse about how I talk, how you talk, how someone from Arkansas talks, how someone from East St. Louis talks, or how someone from Bridgeport, CT, talks. This isn’t about egalitarianism _per se_, just about being factually correct when we talk about language. The fact egalitarianism falls out of that correctness tells you something rather interesting about “ranking” different dialects. > [@ftg](#): > > Languages simplify over time. Cases/declensions get reduced, etc. This is especially true in melting pot situations where there are people from different language backgrounds. Languages all seem to find the same amount of complexity, they just arrange it in different ways. For example, deaf children in Nicaragua were taught a very simple sign language by teachers who thought they’d therefore have to learn to lip-read. Nope. The children _added complexity_ to their language until it was complex enough to be a real language for day-to-day use. Similarly, mature languages don’t lose complexity, they just shuffle it around to different areas: English, in losing its case markers, picked up a much more analytic grammar, which means we express more information about how a word is used by putting it different places in a sentence. This is invisible to English speakers for much the same reason water is invisible to fish; the point is, all the same complexity is there, it’s just carried in a different place (word ordering instead of case marking). > [@](#): > > The rules of grammar are arcane and frequently wrong. Once in a while get a question posted here asking people to parse a sentence or identify what part of speech something in a sentence is. And the replies are sometimes all over the place with large disagreements! So if people sort of get things kind of right with a few errors here and there, so what. The peever’s rules are frequently wrong, and I daresay the actual linguist’s rules are sometimes wrong or, at least, incomplete, but at least the linguist is willing to look at how the language is used to improve their grammatical rules. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Descriptivists: don’t you agree that, in most contexts, most English speakers use "I’ for subjects and “me” for objects? Even without calling it a “misuse,” we could still ask the OP’s question as “Why is ‘between you and I’ a special case?” Yes, I’m willing to agree to what you said, and I think the answer has even been mentioned in this thread already: Hypercorrection, or applying a rule handed down from teachers or parents more broadly than intended. Wikipedia has a nice summary: > [@](#): > > Jack Lynch, assistant professor of English at Rutgers University, says that correction of “me and you” to “you and I” as subject leads people to “internalize the rule that ‘you and I’ is somehow more proper, and they end up using it in places where they shouldn’t – such as ‘he gave it to you and I’ when it should be ‘he gave it to you and me.’” Of course, us mean nasty descriptivists have to bring evidence into the mix and spoil everyone’s fun: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, the linguists Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum claim that utterances such as “They invited Sandy and I” are “heard constantly in the conversation of people whose status as speakers of Standard English is clear”; and that “Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone. Actual usage is in conflict with this assumption.” > **[Hypercorrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection)** > > In sociolinguistics, hypercorrection is the nonstandard use of language that results from the overapplication of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer who produces a hypercorrection generally believes through a misunderstanding of such rules that the form or phrase they use is more "correct", standard, or otherwise preferable, often combined with a desire to appear formal or educated. > Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical rule is app... > [@wolfpup](#): > > Again, those are all excellent points that I don’t dispute, except that I would regard the OED and its lesser equivalents as a lot more than just “useful”. > > I think we all recognize that these sorts of reference works have two different important purposes that in a sense are almost diametrically opposed. The first is to be the definitive record of the present language – what words mean, how they are connected to express ideas, the rules of usage, etc. This is the prescriptive element. To the extent this is useful, it’s descriptive. There’s no need for the OED to degenerate into a style guide, and all of its notes on style should be excised in the name of linguistic accuracy. > [@](#): > > The second is to track how the language is evolving – the new words that arise and the new meanings for old words, new expressions and usages, etc. This is the descriptive element. And they’re both important. No one disputes that. I dispute that the role of style guide has any place in the OED’s mission, but if it helps them sell books to the peevers, so be it. > [@](#): > > Sure, I tend to lean prescriptivist, but I fully recognize that language evolves, that a language used by large populations distributed over broad geographies tends to develop dialects, and that dialects have a standing in their own right and deserve to be documented and studied, and all the other things that descriptivist-leaning observers are always going on about, as if no one else was aware of it. What you apparently aren’t aware of is that people communicate perfectly well without rules some nutball made up in the Nineteenth Century based on flatus and nothing. With most of the peevers’ rules, it isn’t so much about language changing as about them attempting to change the language and, largely, failing, except in a very artificial dialect they’re convinced is the only correct way of speaking. The soupçon of racism inherent in ranking regional dialects is just the cherry on the sundae. > [@](#): > > There are not two “sides” here but merely a continuum, and differing opinions on where we should draw the line on what constitutes correct vs. incorrect usage. As **LSLGuy** rightly points out, and as I did earlier, too, there is a crucial purpose to prescriptive formalisms, and that is clarity of communication. Linguists do tend to lean descriptivist, and they may be fascinated by things like local dialects, but most will not hesitate to slam stupid and ignorant usage, especially when it’s contrived and pretentious like many pronouncements of officialdom and contemporary business-speak. As I said, people are unclear in every dialect, because people are sometimes unclear, _period_. Dialect has absolutely nothing to do with clarity, and I thought I already said that I wasn’t going to let you smuggle in that premise. > [@](#): > > The technical description given by the OED may use terms that are unfamiliar to many, but it’s not the technical terminology that’s important but the principle it conveys, a principle that I think is innately recognized by most native English speakers. To take my example sentence, “The cars, that were well cared for, were in good condition after ten years”, to my ear this is intensely jarring and just screams “what the hell are those commas doing there?” Or if the person is trying to convey the idea that someone had a bunch of cars and cared well for all of them, why the hell is he using “that” instead of “which”?" The people who answer such questions aren’t the people who go into the whole affair convinced that one dialect (which may or may not exist in its fullest imagined form) is correct and everyone else is speaking inherently unclear mush. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/52 "2016-09-03T01:48:32Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > And the fucking “myself” thing drives me absolutely batty. Then I suggest you do not watch survivor. I say this only half seriously. There must be a style mis-usage manual that they pass out before every season. I’m not kidding, they are immune to saying me. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/53 "2016-09-03T01:53:22Z")
> [@Batfish](#): > > Me talk you. You understand. What problem? Ask George Orwell. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/54 "2016-09-03T02:49:44Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > _ **'Til** _ the stars fall from the sky. It’s a contraction. No, there is a missing comma: “Till the stars, fall from the sky”. Advising against stellar agriculture, or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/55 "2016-09-03T02:58:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > …I think we all recognize that these sorts of reference works have two different important purposes that in a sense are almost diametrically opposed. The first is to be the definitive record of the present language – what words mean, how they are connected to express ideas, the rules of usage, etc. This is the prescriptive element. The second is to track how the language is evolving – the new words that arise and the new meanings for old words, new expressions and usages, etc. This is the descriptive element. And they’re both important. No one disputes that. **wolfpup** , I’m a little astonished that you don’t seem to know what prescriptivism & descriptivism mean. Descriptivism: a dialect as it is actually spoken –\> empirical rules and semantics of that dialect. Descriptivism is synonymous with linguistics: it is science. Prescriptivism: arbitrary rules and arbitrary semantics –\> telling people how to speak. There are no prescriptivist linguists, because prescriptivism is (at best) sound & practical style advice or (at worst) sheer nonsense - but in any event, it is not empirical. I think that the editors of the OED would be rather offended to learn that you believe they are in any sense setting rules for the purpose of telling people how they should speak. The OED is record of how language is used - an entirely empirical and scientific endeavor. The fact that it may be imperfect - often out of date due to its sheer size - has no bearing on the underlying scientific (descriptivist) approach. I have no idea what a “prescriptivist dictionary” would even mean. An anthology of favorite peeves? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/56 "2016-09-03T03:06:54Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > You might want [to read the usage note here.](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/till?s=t) Or, let me help: Bah! I’m a descriptivist and I describe the contractional version as correct! ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/57 "2016-09-03T03:12:13Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I have no idea what a “prescriptivist dictionary” would even mean. An anthology of favorite peeves? Heh. There is a way to make an honest prescriptivist dictionary, though: Make a dictionary which defines the meanings of technical terms in a controlled vocabulary, such that the dictionary is the authoritative source of meaning for those words. Contracts do this sometimes, on a very tiny scale, when they define what specific words _will_ be interpreted to mean in the context of that contract. There’s no room for appeal to any other authority: if you want to change what that word means in that contract, you have to change the contract. ---
**Author:** ![SigMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@SigMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SigMan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/58 "2016-09-03T03:50:42Z")
Gus and I are going to the mall. Gus and me are going to the mall. Which is correct? What I learned in English, take out “Gus and” and you’ll see: I am going to the mall. Me am going to the mall. Too obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/59 "2016-09-03T04:03:37Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Heh. There is a way to make an honest prescriptivist dictionary, though: Make a dictionary which defines the meanings of technical terms in a controlled vocabulary, such that the dictionary is the authoritative source of meaning for those words. > > Contracts do this sometimes, on a very tiny scale, when they define what specific words _will_ be interpreted to mean in the context of that contract. There’s no room for appeal to any other authority: if you want to change what that word means in that contract, you have to change the contract. I think I might call that a “glossary”? But in principle, of course - yes, a prescriptivist dictionary is possible. That’s the misconceived way that many people imagine language works in general. I should have added to my prior post – of course many prescriptivists misuse the OED as a tool to support their misguided ideas, precisely because it’s sometimes out of date, and because many prescriptivist peeves are railing against changes in language. ---
**Author:** ![CatastrophicFailure](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@CatastrophicFailure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatastrophicFailure)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748/60 "2016-09-03T04:32:42Z")
Regarding the “that” vs. “which” debate, my recent research into this as part of an intensive grammar class suggests that while “that” should only be used for restrictive clauses, “which” can be used for both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. The idea of “which” being only for non-restrictive clauses is, at best, debated. [This link](https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/that-which-is-restrictive/) does a nice job of summarizing. In the end, if you are going to be a prescriptivist, you still have the debate of who’s rules are the ultimate authority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/between-you-and-i-whats-up-with-the-misuse-of-i/764748.md?page=4)