Read it again. Note: the inconsistency between Case 1 and Case 2, specifically the shared ownership situation in both cases.
Ambiguity within Case 2, no ambiguity within Case 1 -> inconsistency between Case 1 and Case 2.
Do you see it now?
**
**
You yourself said (correctly) that
“the big boat’s wheel”
is equivalent in meaning to
“the wheel of the big boat”,
proving that a noun phrase, consisting of any number of words (3 in this case) can be made the owner in an ownership relation by the addition of apostrophe-s.
**
That’s fine. My point is that while everyone agrees that “me’s” is not a word, there are occasions when it is perfectly correct to use that sequence of symbols.
It’s only correct if we’re reduced to substituting nonsense words for real words when analyzing a sentence.
Although “the big boat’s wheel” is equal to “the wheel of the big boat,” “the big boat” is not in possession of the wheel. The boat and only the boat is. It’s the root of the noun phrase; the entire phrase possesses nothing.
Look, I hate to insult your friend, but grammarians are the creationists of language. They decide upon their beliefs first and then selectively choose facts to fit them. Their beliefs are not based on observation and analysis of how language actually works, so their conclusions are not credible.
Linguistics is a science. Prescriptive grammar is a religion, a very popular one. But if you’re reading the SDMB, I have to assume you want the facts and not religious dogma. So I’m telling you how it is, not how I wish I would be. I’m sorry if what I say goes against what you have been taught. I’m sorry language is so counterintuitive. But facts are facts, and childish insults from you and your grammarian friend can’t change them.
The truth is that like baseball players who do not understand physics but can catch fly balls, most of us are fluent speakers who are not able to describe how our language works.
It is both gratifying and amusing to note the fervour with which both sides are pursuing this debate. Where else (outside specialist language-focused lists) would you find people willing to argue so passionately over such things?
Hazel-rah, do you really believe that “He and I are going to the party” is incorrect English? What reason do you have for doing so?
I don’t think that you can put the word “me” in a bracket like you’re doing because the word “me” is intimately tied to the verb of the sentence. The word “me” requires that it be the object of the verb. You can not have the word “me” without there being a verb of which it is the object, any more you can have the word “I” without there being a verb of which it is the subject. You seem to think that the word “me” represents the first person, but I contend that more precisely, it represents the first person as an object. You see, regular nouns can be used three ways:
object: “I am driving the car.”
subject: “The car is low on gasoline.”
adjective: “Do you know where the car keys are?”
Pronouns, however, are more specialized. Each one performs one of these tasks, and only that task (yes, there are exceptions, but this is generally how it works). In this case, we are using the pronoun as an adjective, so we need the adjective form, “my”. We can’t simply declare that no task is being performed, therefore the default pronoun is to be used (and I don’t see where you got the idea that the subject form is the default, either). It is part of a noun phrase that is being used as an adjective, therefore it takes the adjective form.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
However, I would like to see the other particapants to weigh in regarding “The girl who came with me’s car is over there.” Is it correct? Is there a better substitute (other than “the car of the girl who came with me is over there”)?
I’m assuming that you’re speaking to someone - you’re not writing it for all of history. With spoken langage, there’s really only one issue: If, without straining, the other person can understand what you’re saying, then it’s correct. That’s all we require spoken language to do: make ourselves understood. Whether it holds up to an artificial system of logic is pretty much completely irrelevant, because language is not logic.
Only a pedant would ever believe “I ain’t got nobody” means the same thing as “I’ve got somebody.”
We might agree that for particular audiences, in particular circumstances, certain usages may be better than others because they enhance clarity. But that’s not the case here: what you’re describing couldn’t be clearer.
Piffle. Grammarians base their knowledgeon observation and analysis of educated users of English. Linguists observe the ignorant and educated alike, claim that they are equal in stature, and pass off the result as a guide to what English should be. Decidedly NOT what people who ask for grammar advice are looking for.
Indeed, linguistics is a science; so is physics. Physics can tell you what will happen when you fire a gun at someone’s head, but it can’t tell you when you should do it. Linguistics can tell you how many people say things a given way, and when they started doing it, but it can’t tell you what the right way is, only the most common way. To say they’re the same thing is a value judgement, namely that the opinion of the ignorant is as good as the opinion of the educated. That’s YOUR religion, and it’s antithetical to the mission of the SDMB. If you want to champion the downtrodden, work toward universal healthcare.
OxyMoron:
Nonsense; everyone expects a great deal more than that of spoken language; it expresses class, status, education, commonality, attitude, and regard. Of course I understand what “I ain’t got nobody” means; I even understand what “i got nbuddy” means. When someone says something like “My sister ‘n’ me’s cats got drownded,” I know damn well what she’s saying – I also know a great deal more. Actually hearing her speak, I might guess her age, where she learned English, where she’s lived since then, what education she received, what class she belongs to, and whether she’s good company under an awning on a rainy afternoon.
I might agree that for particular audiences, in particular circumstances, certain less-than-correct usages might be more appropriate than others because they enhance rapport, but that’s not because they’re right; it’s because principle must sometimes give way to expediency.
The problem is that use of the favored dialects of English you equate with “educated” does not correlate with intelligence. Standard English is a socially favored dialect, without a doubt. But it’s functionally equivalent to any other dialect of English. People who judge intelligence and character based on a person’s accent or dialect are bigots, plain and simple. No better than racists, and profoundly ignorant. My acceptance of these facts does not constitute a religion. I suggest you have a lot to learn about language.
[I must admit I’m as impressed as I am astounded that a thread about such a basic grammatical construction has gone to three pages. Wow!]
The part where hazel-rah lost me was where he or she declared that in the phrase “my sister and me’s cat”, me’s is not a word that appears. That is a point of departure which makes further (fruitful) discussion of the topic difficult if not next to impossible, because it flies in the face of how most of us use words. We all plainly saw the (non-)word me’s, repeatedly. How we can be expected to believe it didn’t appear, simply because someone intended it to be part of a phrase, is simply inaccessible to most of the rest of us, who are not majoring in linguistics.
Now: Do we all need to use perfect grammar, all the time, like little pedantic English teachers with our glasses on the tips of our nose and our hair in a bun, wielding a wooden ruler in our bony claw? Obviously not, and thank heavens, or that last sentence wouldn’t have cut the mustard. We don’t need to make up new words, however, to convey our meaning just because we happen to “feel like” it’s uncomfortable to say “My sister’s and my cat”.
Linguistics (or ‘the study of language for its own sake’) is fine, and it’s neither an exact science nor a religion. As to forming judgments about people based on how they talk or write, however, IMO it’s inaccurate and spectacularly unfair to call this bigotry. Not only is it patently unavoidable, it’s a perfectly natural, healthy and sane thing to do. Were it not so, intelligent people would be barred from seeking out and recognizing other intelligent people to have discussions with (with whom to have discussions, that is) based on speech, because of some misguided, hyper-PC notion that such discrimination amounts to bigotry. If a person is not compatible with me liguistically, chances are we won’t be on the same wavelength conceptually, either.
It is one of the blessings upon mankind that erudition or intelligence, ignorance or stupidity may be revealed through language and treated accordingly. Me’s here to tell ya, I ain’t gonna look that there gift-horse in the mouth.
Not everyone that uses non-standard dialects is unintelligent, but everyone who uses a standard dialect shows themselves to at least have a minimum amount of intelligence.
It is perfectly natural to think of people with different dialects as having less intelligence. If anyone says they don’t, I would doubt their honesty. Of course people should be aware of this tendency, and not allow it to unduly influence their decisions, but “bigotry” is hyperbole. It is hard for me to take seriously anyone who says that when I encounter someone that appears to have the speech patterns of a pre-schooler, I should not, even on an emotional level, have an adverse reaction to that.
People who object to me’s, we still haven’t heard what you think about The Ryan’s “The girl who came with me’s car is over there”. Seems perfectly correct to me, if not the most elegant English.
The girl who came with me’s car is over there
The girl who came with you’s car is over there
The girl who came with him’s car is over there
The girl who came with her’s car is over there
The girl who came with them’s car is over there
And just to make sure we are alll singing off the same hymn sheet
The girl who came with I’s car is over there
The girl who came with you’s car is over there
The girl who came with he’s car is over there
The girl who came with she’s car is over there
The girl who came with they’s car is over there
These are all incorrect.
Only nouns can take posession with an apostrophe s.
If the girl who drove you here is called Janet you could refer to her car as Janet’s car.
Janet is a noun, a proper noun at that and only nouns can take posession.
If you do not know the name of the girl who brought you here, then the car is her car. If that confuses the listener, you may well have to explain that you don’t know her name.
Why were you getting in a car in the first place with a girl whose name you don’t know?
Because she is John’s sister.
Well, then, the car in question is John’s sister’s car and it is over there.
Because you fancied her and she seemed keen.
Well, then, the car in question is that hot chick’s car and she left it over there after she had her wicked way with you. Or maybe it belongs to that tease over there who knocked you back, in which case, the car in question is that bitch’s car.
*The girl who came with me * is not a noun.
Only nouns can take posession with an apostrophe s.
If anyone doubts that and can show me in a dictionary an entry for the girl who came with me, defined as a noun then I will wholeheartedly agree with this nonsense, eat my hat and generally lie down and turn up my toes.
I will also do this if any reputable dictionary can be found which defines me’s as the first person possessive pronoun.
Or, obviously, as I will have been proved thoroughly incorrect - I will turn up me’s toes.
Do you object to “The girl with the blonde hair’s car is over there” too? If so, then I advise you to cover your ears while out in public so as not to be offended by people’s grammar. If not then I don’t see why The Ryan’s sentence is unacceptable, because “the girl with blonde hair” is not a noun either. Ryan’s example sounds OK to me, and indeed I have heard and probably uttered such sentences many times.
Nobody claimed that “The girl who came with I’s car is over there” or “I will turn up me’s toes” were correct, so I’m not sure why you mention them. Is that what they call a “straw man” round here?
Vastard, one of you is going to have to get a dog. I’ll sell you mine - he’s house trained and good around children. In fact, you can have him. Please.
Just promise that next time you’ll ask a poet, not a scientist. They stole our language and now they want to use it against us (and our cats).
I don’t think so.
The differences between me and I have been brought up time after time after time after time in this thread.
Have you not spotted that? Is that what they call a straw man around here?
Well, blow me down
As for your assertion that no one said “turn up me’s toes” was correct, I suggest you go back to the start of this thread, where it was claimed that “My sister’s and me’s cats” was correct.
Substitute cats for toes or toes for cats and you might see why I said it.
Do I object to “The girl with the blonde hair’s car is over there”?
Absolutely not. It is correct.
It is correct for the very reason that I laid out more than once in my answer above, “hair” is a noun.
Me is not a noun.
Personally, I wouldn’t write “The girl with the blonde hair’s car”, even though it is grammatically correct. I would write “The blonde girl’s car” because I think it sounds better.
That is style and style is based on opinion, grammar is not.
What about “The girl who’s talking’s car”? In the case of “The girl with the blonde hair’s car is over there”, the hair does not have possession of the car. So if you’re willing to allow the " 's " to be attached to a word that does not possess it, why does the word that does not possess it have to be a noun?