Unless you’re Ali G, of course.
On further consideration, by the alleged “rule”, if one contracted “my sister and I” (or “my sister and me” 
) down to the word “us”, the sentence would then be constructed:
**Us’s cats. **
This just doesn’t make sense. Unless, as my right honourable friend jr8 says, one is Ali G (or indeed from Cornwall).
Try the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. It reflects the most up-to-date linguistic research on English usage for a reference and doesn’t assume you have a working knowledge of linguistics.
Well cool - haven’t got the book, so can you type in a bit of the relevant paragraphs?
That should read “for a reference book” not just “for a reference.”
I don’t have the Cambridge Grammar handy, sorry. Here’s a couple cites I found online though:
A lecture for an introductory linguistics class. Scroll down to the bottom and look at the third example under the heading “Three Examples of Prescriptivist Silliness.”
Here’s a diplomatic post that is relevant from the Ask A Linguist List.
Hazel-rah, as a linguist you surely know that there are no higher authorities than the Oxford English Dictionary and Harbrace. The latter has been the standard in American college courses since at least as long ago as 1941. If Harcourt and Brace made an error, I’m certain that they would have noticed by the 11th edition.
Grammar is not always a matter of logic. And it is certainly not a matter of what is most commonly used in speech.
I studied linguistics, semantics, syntax and grammar in separate courses at Vanderbilt and earned a degree in English. I worked in publishing as an editorial assistant before spending twenty years teaching high school English. I’m just letting you know that I do have some knowledge of these areas.
You are seemingly trying to apply the group genitive rule where it does not belong. The term group genitive is used to label constructions like"the son of Pharoah’s daughter" and “the boy I’m dating’s car.” Those are correct – though the first one can be understood in more than one way. But that does not apply to what we have been discussing here.
It’s not that we don’t understand what you are saying. We disagree with you because every reputable source says that you are mistaken.
Do I make mistakes? You bet! The older I get, the more mistakes I make. Also, the farther removed I am from the classroom, the less picky I get. But the purpose of SDMB is to fight ignorance. That’s why I’m up on my high horse about this one.
In the study of the English language, the OED and Harbrace outrank self-referential authority every time.
[/my part of the argument]
I read those cites, and I see where you’re coming from. It seems that it comes down to a prescriptive vs. descriptive argument. I believe dantheman is a copy-editor, and I am a some-time copy-editor. It’s our job to be prescriptive, based on the (arbitrarily chosen) style of our publication/s. If we were to use a purely descriptive style guide, we’d not be doing our job properly.
Toughie.
However, are you’re necessarily correct in saying we’re “wrong”? As a purely descriptive subject, I’d imagine linguists to say “(within certain boundaries) all given constructions are equally valid”. Of course I may be incorrect in this imagining.
And personally, in my daily spoken and/or written life, I would never ever use the word “me’s”.
Er, that was exactly my point, so I’m not sure why you quoted me and made an apparent rebuttal.
I read those cites too, and neither mentions “me’s” as a possessive. In fact, the examples are about using "I’ and “me”, which seems somewhat irrelevant to the point.
Until I see authoritive cites for “me’s”, it is a non-word in my book.
To begin with, stating that you never use the word me’s is a mystifying rejoinder to my assertions about the phrase in question. I never claimed that anybody would ever use me’s outside of a very specific construction… one where me is the second NP in a compound NP to which the genitive marker [-s] is being applied. To generalize my position from that specific case to one where a person is merrily replacing my with me’s willy-nilly is such a gross mischaracterization it’s comical. Surely you all realize that English syntax is much more complex than that.
Next, style guides are for writing. The OP asked how the phrase could be said correctly. And as I have stated repeatedly, I don’t have a huge problem with the alternates suggested in response to the OP. If I were writing it, I would probably take the same approach many of you would, and rephrase it entirely. Mainly I take issue with those who are saying my version is incorrect, and secondarily those who are claiming “you and I” is correct vs. “you and me.”
Well, all dialects are equally valid. That said, native speakers have a mental representation of their language against which utterances can in fact be judged. So it’s quite possible for a given construction to be ungrammatical. Some are obviously wrong (“John store to went the” for example), some are less obviously right or wrong and you need a good grounding in syntax to see why one might be preferable to another.
And as it turns out, me is preferable to I in conjunctive phrases even if they are in the subject position. This rests on the fact that in English a conjunctive phrase does not necessarily share or impose its grammatical features (such as gender, case or number) with or on its constituent noun phrases. In other words, what looks like a clean rule to a prescriptivist is in fact an exception in our mental representation of our native grammar, and imposing such arbitrary and inconsistent exceptions on the language is asking for trouble. They think they’re clarifying things but in reality are making things more difficult. Messing with surface representations is asking for trouble when you don’t understand the underlying structure.
-fh
We may be getting beyond the scope of this thread, but let me ask. How do linguists determine what’s “preferable” or what’s “our mental representation of our native grammar” in English? It can’t just be from looking at what people say, because plenty of people say “you and I”. That form certainly makes more sense to me…
And what many people have said back to you is that it would never be used. Ever. It’s never said or written.
You mean you think the OP wanted to know how to speak the sentence properly, not write it?
I repeat: Your answer was wrong. It’s correct neither when speaking nor when writing. “Me’s” is in no way, shape, or form correct English, and because of this it’s a poor answer.
We claim it’s incorrect because it’s a completely invalid English construction.
Should I add a few more "ever"s to my statement “never ever”? It might be descriptive of what people say in Texas, but I’ve certainly never heard it in Ireland or the UK.
I have to agree with dantheman on most the points.
But I have one exception with which I agree with hazel.
Exception first. I thought from our cite about “Lewis and Clark’s expectations” that possessives can attach themselves to noun phrases, no? As in “We went to the bride and groom’s house.” That’s a perfectly valid construction as far as I know. And, following the citation on page one, if we wrote “We went to the bride’s and groom’s house” that would refer to two separate houses, one the bride’s, one the groom’s. I think that’s perfectly clear from our reference, and, even better, it sounds correct to my ears, at least.
I object to “me,” “her,” and the such being used with conjunctions in the nominative position. I have never heard “Peter and me went to the store” being advocated as English grammar and, if you’ve ever followed my notes on grammar issues, I am certainly not a prescriptivist. Fact is, I just don’t hear people talking that way. Ever. Even in the neighborhood where I grew up where people use “borrow” to mean both “borrow” and “lend” have I ever heard it used this way.
What people sometimes do get confused by is whether to say “between you and I” and “between you and me.” The latter is correct in standard English. I also think, if we did a survey, that it would sound more natural to most people anyway, but in an effort to be hypercorrect, some speakers confuse the prescriptivist rules and use “between you and I.” (Pronouns that come after a preposition take the objective case.)
Reflecting on the grammatical problem at hand, i.e. using “my sister” and “I” as joint possessors of “dogs,” I really can’t see any elegant solution that does not require recasting. Read my previous post and read the citations. I retract my solution of “Me and my sister’s dogs,” which, while colloquial and how it’s actually used in my neighborhood, is obviously incorrect as there’s no way “I” would be in the objective case “me.” “I and my sister’s dogs” seems to be correct, but is potentially ambiguous.
“My sister and me’s dogs” is decidedly un-English. If anyone is sounding prescriptivist, it’s you, hazel-rah as I doubt if anyone did a survey on this sentence (which linguists do do to test grammar) I very much doubt that anybody would insist this sounds like good English. I really don’t mean for that to sound snarky, please don’t take it the wrong way.
Well, let me just shoot down my “hypercorrection” theory about the “between you and me” issue, but this web site has a level-headed explanation of this phrase:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbetwee.html
So perhaps some people do use “You and me” even in the subject position, but it sounds decidedly wrong to my ears (and is wrong according to the stylebooks and prescriptivists.)
All your cat are belong to us!
Him and me don’t disagree. snort
[quote]
pulykamell: Exception first. I thought from our cite about “Lewis and Clark’s expectations” that possessives can attach themselves to noun phrases, no? As in “We went to the bride and groom’s house.” That’s a perfectly valid construction as far as I know. And, following the citation on page one, if we wrote “We went to the bride’s and groom’s house” that would refer to two separate houses, one the bride’s, one the groom’s. I think that’s perfectly clear from our reference, and, even better, it sounds correct to my ears, at least.
Your understanding of the two possessive constructions is accurate. That is the rule for nouns.
Yeah, I know. It’s the whole applying the rule to pronouns that doesn’t seem to work, isn’t it? Hence settling on the whole “recast” solution, which I generally hate.