…As in: “Me and my friends…” or “My friends and I…”
The only time I know for sure when to use I is in something like: “Mary and I…”
At the age of 31 you would think I would know this already.:o
Use “I” when you’re the subject and “Me” when you’re the object, as in,
“I went to the zoo, and the zookeeper fed me to the lions.”
You should never use “me and my friends”. If it’s going to be correct, it should always be something like “my friends and me”. Now, how do you know when to use “I” and when to use “me”?
The technical answer is that pronouns can take either the nominative or objective case, and you should know which is which. Nominative case (like “I”, “he”, and “we”) is used for the subject of a sentence:
I am not happy.
or as the predicate nominative. Predicate nominative occurs with a linking verb (usually the verb “is”) that actually equates the subject with something:
The happiest person is he.
Pronouns take the objective case when they are the object of the verb of a sentence:
The vile trout smacked me down.
Or when they are the object of a preposition:
Aside from him, everyone is miserable.
Now, if you combine pronouns with a conjuction then it doesn’t change what case they should be. For example, in this example:
The wizard killed my friends and me.
“My friends and me” is the object of the preposition “killed”, so any pronouns in it should be in the objective case. In the example:
The only ones who know are you and I.
“You and I” is the predicate nominative, so any pronouns in it should be in the nominative case.
The simple answer is less likely to get you the right answer, but will be easier to employ. In order to test a sentence with a phrase like this:
My friends and me are going to the beach.
Substitute the compound phrase “My friends and me” for just the pronoun “me” and see if it works:
Me am going to the beach.
Clearly, this is wrong, and you should use “My friends and I”. Another good example is:
Without you and I, this won’t work.
Becomes:
Without I, this won’t work.
Clearly wrong again, and so “you and me” should replace “you and I”.
Whenever you aren’t sure whether to use ‘me and my friends’ or ‘my friends and I,’ just see how it sounds without ‘my friends.’
Is it ‘me and my friends are going to the mall?’ or ‘my friends and I are going to the mall?’
Without ‘my friends,’ you can easily hear the difference between ‘Me am going to the mall’ and ‘I am going to the mall.’ Once you’ve figured out which form of ‘I’ to use, you can add your friends back in and confidently speak or write your sentence.
And please avoid “Return it to my friends and myself.” Replace “myself” in that sentence with “me” to make it correct.
“It is me” is considered correct altho it is a predicate nominative. Purists and Harvard graduates may argue otherwise, but if it is acceptable by William Safire, it’s good enough for me.
Another acceptable exception is a sentence such as “He is faster than me.” Although the sentence is elliptical and the complete sentence is “He is faster than I am,” if you omit the last predicate, the objective case has become acceptable, especially colloquially. Again, purists and Harvard graduates disagree. 
Piffle and nonsense. There’s no grammatical reason why “my friends” can’t go second.
Okay. I believe you. Sorry for the misinformation. Go with what acsenray says.
In any case with a compound noun-“and”-pronoun phrase, just test by dropping the noun-“and” portion. Nobody above the age of 5 customarily says “Me want to go,” so it would be “My friends and I want to go.” The reason behind the occasion use of the nominative after than is that the pronoun is elliptical for a full clause: “Nobody is fatter than I” is correct because it’s short for “Nobody is fatter than I am.” On the other hand, “I consider nobody fatter than him” does not admit of an ellipsis, so “him” is correct.
Note: Precisionist usage calls for the nominative in the disjunctive position after forms of “to be” other than the infinitive. However, colloquial usage even among careful speakers allows and usually calls for the objective. Responding to “Who’s there?” after knocking at a door, “It is I” is somewhat precious; “It’s me” is the normal speech form. “It’s I” would be a solecism to any grammarian worth his salt, combining the precisionist “I” with the colloquial conjunction.
I apologise, Arch, if I came off a bit too strong. It’s just that this is one of those schoolteacher’s rules that has been propagated for decades without any basis in the history, development, or scholarship of English grammar. Sometimes it sticks in my craw. Same with the one about not ending a sentence with a preposition. And the one about not splitting an infinitive. Bah!
Nay. When an author is speaking of more than one person, one of whom is the author, it is correct to always put the author last in the list:
eg: Mary, John and I.
Mr. Smith told Ralph, Sue and me to leave his store.
My friends and I are going skiing.
This is done as a sign of respect to the other people that the author is speaking of.
Of course, I can’t find a cite for this anywhere…
Bah! Stupid Google…
Correct by what standard? Certainly not by a standard of English grammar or correct usage.
If your standard is a standard of politeness or respect, even then I think your conclusion is overstated.
There are a lot of things one can do with language to indicate respect. Take the use of the title “Mister.” The New York Times uses it consistently when referring to men in its articles. However, The Washington Post, by policy, does not use “Mister” when referring to men in its articles.
I do not believe that the Post either intends to accord or is perceived as according less respect to the people mentioned in its articles than the Times.
When it comes to ordering people in lists, I doubt very many people even notice who is being listed in what order, and I think even fewer ascribe it with a motive of showing disrespect in this day and age.
If it is not meant to show disrespect and it is not perceived as showing disrespect, then my conclusion is that it’s not indicative of respect or disrepect.
There is no difference in meaning between:[ul][li]He is taller than I.[]He is taller than me.[/ul]However you need to be careful because, in some cases, the meaning is different. Consider:[ul][]He loves you more than I.He loves you more than me.[/ul]The first means he loves you more than I love you. [/li]The second means he loves you more than he loves me.
I’ve heard that in lists, you should put second person first and first person last as a matter of respect. I don’t always follow this rule though.
Nope, not at all. Sorry, I have a tendency to sound bitter even when I’m not. (And it’s “Ach”. And no, I’m not bitter. ;))
**
Well, additional searches have led me to believe that this particular convention may be a style choice.
Well, I notice (or, specifically, I notice when the author has listed themselves first or last), and sometimes I do ascribe it with the motive of denoting respect or a lack thereof (depending on the author), or, more commonly, having made a grammatical boo-boo.
I think on this point that I may have to concede that actual grammatical rules are not on my side, but it still picks my butt. Not unlike “fishes”, which I feel is incorrect; even if 27 people tell me it’s not.
I still maintain that it’s impossible to split an infinitive. Take as an example the sentence “Remember to never split infinitives.”. The way I see it, the verb in this sentence is “never split”, and the infinitive form of that verb is clearly “to never split”.
Chronos, I’ll hope you’re kidding and I’m being wooshed.
“Never” is an adverb – i.e., it modifies verbs – not a verb (or part of a verb). In your example sentence, the verb is “to split” and “never” is how you’re supposed to do the verb.
Thus, you could say “Remember to never split infinitives”, or “Remember to always split infinitives”, or “Remember to sometimes split infinitives”, and the verb is always the same – “split”. The only thing changing is how you’re doing the verb.
Dang, must have a lot to prove being from Alabama and all;)
Just kiddin though, I lived in Alabama for a while and went to school at Auburn so I’ve had to endure the jeers too.
I speak in all seriousness. A verb is constructed from the combination of zero or more adverbial phrases and a verb. The word “never” is a single-word adverbial phrase. “Split” is a simple verb; “never split” is a compound verb constructed from the simple verb “split” and the adverbial phrase “never”.
I think your objection is okay, Chronos, but simply one of semantics. By your defintions, there are no “split infinitives” per se. But by your definitions, split infinitives are not what the purists are protesting, but rather a particularly-arranged infinitive phrase.