There is a line, and perhaps a fine one, between style and rule. A pronoun can begin a sentence but it depends upon the structure. What doesn’t “sound right” is often a valid indicator of proper usage and/or style as it, perhaps sub-consciously, reflects the rules and usage that you learned in school.
“I” is the subjective pronoun while “me” is the objective pronoun. “I” would be the correct pronoun in “I and Bob” (subjective). “Me and Bob” is incorrect as “me” is an objective pronoun. But putting the correct pronoun (“I”) first sounds wrong, if not pretentious. That may be where you cross the line from rule to style, ergo “Bob and I”. But not accepting a style, if one wishes to reject it, does not give license to therefore break the rule.
When it comes to plural subjects, I and Bob, Bob and I, me and Bob, bob and me are all correct. They are valid formulations of a plural subject in English. Their correctness is dependent on the formality of the required register and the dialect of the speaker and listener(s).
An objectively incorrect and ungrammatical formulation would have to be something like “I Bob and” or “And Bob I”.
It’s important to bear in mind that many ‘rules’ as such are merely stylistic preferences. Generally speaking, if you have evidence of a native speaker using any given construction, by default that construction cannot be considered ungrammatical or to be breaking a rule.
I don’t see why not. It’s not a “rule” English speakers follow, in my experience. While I’d probably avoid it in formal cases just to avoid the argument, I really don’t see any problem with saying “Me and Bob” if I want to emphasize myself at the head of the sentence for some reason. That–at least to me–seems to be the more natural choice. Now, I could very well be wrong about that, but “I and Bob” just sounds very unnatural to my ears.
“Bob and I went” (more formal)
“Me and Bob went” (more colloquial, slight emphasis on me)
“Bob and me went” (more colloquial, slight emphasis on Bob)
but I would not say “I and Bob went.” If I wanted to use this construction, I’d say something like “I went with Bob to. . . .”
Similar with the third person: “him and Bob went,” “he and Bob went,” “Bob and him went,” but not “Bob and he went.”
The forbidden nominative forms are “I and . . .” but “. . . and he / she / we / they.” Since these aren’t parallel to each other, I’m sure that’s just internalizing the politeness rule (put the pronoun first, but don’t put “I” first). Nevertheless, there it is.
This is the best answer to the OP in a nutshell, since we don’t know the bigger context of “The King and I.”
Yup. Any non-reflexive use of “myself” really needs swift and harsh punishment.
“Joey and me went to the park” is just wrong.
What is the issue? That you have to be the focus of the sentence? “Bob is going to the ballgame with me.” You have to come first? “I’m taking Bob to the ballgame.” Why? You can’t say “Bob and I are going to the ballgame,” because you always have to be first? How about “I’m going to the ballgame with myself. Some dude named Bob is also going.” Or, “I’m going to the ballgame. That’s all you really need to know, but some insignificant peon is going with me to fetch my beer and popcorn. I call him Bob.”
I really don’t get what the problem is with “Bob and I are going to the ballgame.” All “Me and Bob are going to the ballgame” does is make you sound not so bright.
All that means is that the "native speaker’ does not know proper grammar. That’s why there are teachers in schools to correct the “native speaker’s” incorrect speech. (A New jersey driver makes a turn into the wrong lane. As he is a “native New jersey driver” then by definition his driving cannot be considered to be breaking a rule.)
You are incorrect. The teachers are teaching a particular dialect, the formal standard language, which differs from the language children speak at home. Native speakers cannot be wrong if they are speaking the way that their community speaks, but they can be (and often are) wrong for the formal language taught in schools. Diglossia, etc.
Sure, and there is also an assumption being made the speaker doesn’t know “proper” (i.e. prestige dialect) grammar. That’s not necessarily true at all. Many speakers–myself included–shift dialects depending on context. In an academic/formal context, I will speak and write a hyper-conservative prescriptivist form of English, using words I’d never use in natural conversation like “whom”, be careful about the distinction between “fewer” and “less,” perhaps even avoid ending sentences in prepositions, even though prescriptivist grammar has walked back a bit on this issue. In my natural dialect, I will use phrases like “can ya borrow me coupla (two-tree) bucks?” and “Me and Bob are going to the movies; wanna come with?” and that sort. That’s perfectly grammatical in my dialect. I damn well know the “proper” grammar, but that’s not the same as my natural/community grammar.
There is no rational way to define proper grammar except that which is spoken by native speakers. The dialect taught in schools is a particular version of english that was arbitrarily designated as formal and standard but it is not innately any more correct or better than any other given dialect.
There are regional dialects, which are acceptable, but that is not the same as ‘sloppy" speech. Contrary to the “PC” attitudes of the past few years, there *is *"right’ and “wrong” in disciplines. That includes English grammar. I may be more precise in my use of grammar when I am writing, where I can see the words, than in speaking. But I nevertheless try to take the extra second to use the proper word when speaking so that I don’t get into the lazy habit of using improper grammar. Not to mention the “slippery slope” (my apologies for the cliche) use of improper words that don’t mean what the person is trying to say, because “it means what I want it to mean”, which is often seen. I just read a magazine article in which the author repeatedly used “bi-annual” when from the context it was clear that she meant “semi-annual”.
Biannual can mean every six months or every two years. Semiannual and biennial are options, and they are very good options, but biannual for either meaning is not wrong.
I recommend you research the concept of correctness standards, registers, and code-switching.
The primary definition of “biannual” is “occurring twice a year.” You can even look in this etymological dictionary. Even the folk down at Oxford Dictionaries primarily define it as such. (In fact, both those sources only list the “every six months” definition.)
Now, “biennial” unambiguously means every two years. “Biannual” can be used in both senses, but (as I personally understand it), it generally means twice a year. I solve the problem by not using these words, as they have too much potential for confusion.
So, no, the author was perfectly correct in using “biannual” to refer to an event that happens twice a year.