I believe I’ve said that from my very first post on the subject. In formal English, that’s definitely a no-go for the reason you state.
ETA: OK, I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. The first time I brought this construction up I said: "I would say “me and my wife’s,” and nobody in my dialect would blink an eye except for the language mavens, but that’s an inelegant solution as well. " The “language mavens” part was where I was thinking “of course you wouldn’t put it that way, because ‘me’ is not in the subjective.” It’s clear that formally, you would never start a sentence “Me and XXXX”. If you wanted to put yourself at the head, it should be “I.” But it sounds weird to native English speakers.
Agree with all of that. And I realize that, by putting the word “rules” in quotes, you’re not actually saying that “me and Suzie went to the movies” is wrong, but only that schoolmarms and extreme prescriptivists would insist that the pronoun “me” must take the subjective case. But as Pinker has argued (and I’m pretty sure that linguists like Geoff Pullum and John McWhorter would say the same) there is no rule and never has been a rule that says that the terms inside a conjunction phrase must have the same grammatical properties, such as case or number, as the phrase itself. It may, or it may not. A conjunction like a noun phrase is its own thing and is not grammatically equivalent to any of its parts. As Pinker eloquently puts it, “… if the person on the street is so good at avoiding ‘Me is going’ and ‘Give I a break,’ and even former Rhodes Scholars and Ivy League professors can’t seem to avoid ‘Me and Jennifer are going’ … might it be the mavens that misunderstand English grammar, not the speakers?”
Sez who? As noted above, according to people who have spent a lifetime studying language, there is no such grammar rule in the English language, even though many a poor kid has had his knuckles rapped by a schoolmarm over using “me and Alice” as a noun phrase in the subjective case.
Something like that. I wouldn’t go so far as “schoolmarms and extreme prescriptivists” so much as to say that in formal written American English (and I assume other dialects), it’s frowned upon or considered non-standard.
Not trying to pick on you, and apologies if it seemed that way. The point is not your understanding of the sentence. I’m sure your understanding is correct. The point is about the claim that “‘me’ is ungrammatical because the pronoun is in the wrong case”. It’s far from clear that this is any kind of “rule” that must always be followed, as in the argument I cited. It’s not axiomatic that the case of the terms within a noun phrase must always agree with the case of the phrase itself. It’s more a stylistic choice that is more appropriate in some registers than in others, according to either explicit stylistic expectations or the implied expectations of tradition.
I’m going to take very small issue here on this. Is it necessarily an issue with the education system or perhaps a lack of interest in those being taught? I understand English is a living language and always evolving. I struggle mightily reading The Canterbury Tales in original form to the point of frustration.
I can only imagine that many from then till now have complained about changes in the language. I’m sure in 400 years people will struggle to comprehend what we consider “proper” (American) English.
But for now we have certain standardizing rules that it seems are becoming optional. Again, it’s expected in a living language. And maybe I’m just turning into an old man yelling at the fence post.
But dammit, “it’s” and “its” seems so basic. “Whose” and “who’s”. They can completely change the context of a statement. And changing the context of a statement can completely change what is being communicated. Which is kind of the point of language.
Anyway, sorry for the side rant. Just saying you can’t teach something to someone who doesn’t want to learn.
DPRK’s statement would be grammatically true since she would own the house as well so the possessive is correct.
Plus it’s 5 words versus a minimum of 8 in your construction. I’m a firm believer in using as few words as possible to get an idea across. Even if I do tend to ramble at times.
If you need to express yourself for emphasis, “I and John” is wrong, but you could say “I did, and John as well.”
Compound plurals can always be made clear if you try. “My and my wife’s house is Dutch colonial”; “My wife and I just found out our house needs a new roof”; “The house my wife and I have is going on the market, because we want something bigger for our pinball machine collection, and would prefer a two-car garage.”
Because people thinks there’s a slight ambiguity-- there could somehow be two houses. I don’t think anyone would understand it that way. If you are really worried, you could say “The house I own with my wife,” or for that matter, “The house of my wife and me.”
I hate the misuse of the reflexive pronoun as well. I hate that people fall back on it as something that they believe can stand in for either a nominative or accusative pronoun, because as children, they have been so harassed about their pronoun use: “Don’t say ‘Me and John,’ say ‘John and I.’” Then when people overcorrect, and say “Will you walk with John and I?” they get told to say “John and me?” It’s a headscratcher for a 4-yr-old.
At some point, kids being told this need to understand the fundamental difference between “me” and “I.” But the people teaching the kids need to understand it themselves first.
