Chariots don’t swing, making “swing low, sweet chariot” ridiculous if one was supposed to take it literally. Popular music and culture play off more formal usage to stand apart for poetic and comic effect. So suggesting because there is a song titled “Ain’t We Got Fun” proves “ain’t” is accepted formal usage is a stretch. Ultimately language is what language does, and if you’re okay saying the equivalent of “me went to the store” instead of “I went to the store” by tacking “and my friends” to “me,” I can’t stop you, and I will try not to cringe visibly.
And who is suggesting this? Are you actually reading my posts? In almost every post on this subject I state, quite clearly, this form is not considered standard, formal English. Heck in the post you’re responding to I state: " Let me reiterate: “Me and my friends” is not a standard form […] Once again, nonstandard/colloquial."
I delete “formal” from my post.
OK, so you disagree that “me and X” is an accepted usage in many dialects of English? Note, that is one of my points: “But, like you said, it does sound stilted, which is why many/most people opt for “me and my friends,” which they perceive as the preferable construction in cases where you want to front the sentence. It’s “wrong” by prescriptivist grammar/formal situations/prestige dialect English, but in colloquial English ain’t nothin’ ungrammatical about it.”
Like I said, I just find it very cool how there is this quirk with “me” as a compound subject head. It’s a pretty observation of the English language. (And there isn’t anything wrong with “ain’t.” That’s a fun little story, too. English is fun. Words are fun.)
Rereading this thread, it is clear to me I have been a doofus, essentially shouting “get off my lawn!” when 1) there is no one on my lawn and 2) I do not even have a lawn. This was irresponsible of me, and no doubt annoying to others. “Me and my friends” is like fingernails on a blackboard to me, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. I apologize for what might well look like threadshitting or trolling. Neither was my intention.
This is explained in Quirk’s book. Something along the line that (in some colloquial speech) the default, unmarked case is objective, and what marks the “subject zone” is occurring right before the verb, which leads to “It’s me” and “Me and Bob work together”, but “I go”, “I work”
NB however, no one, that I saw, claimed that this is a new rule of formal, standard English or even that it be that popular.
My opinion is pretty well expressed by:
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
—James D. Nicoll
[Y]ou know what English is? The result of the efforts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids in the Ninth Century Pre-Atomic, and no more legitimate than any of the other results.
—H. Beam Piper
I’ve always loved that quote.
So do y’all say another thing coming or another think coming?
I’d say that either is correct, but I believe that think is the original, playing off the saying think twice.
I don’t consider Judas Priest to be an authority on the matter, but I wonder if they recognized the different ways people say it with their line I ain’t fooling, and you better think again.
If you want to make the distinction about etiquette then it would have to be “me” first and “me” second. That way the etiquette issue (if there is one) isn’t muddied by the grammar issue in that both forms are as grammatically wrong as each other.
Here’s a gripe about my high school English teachers’ way of teaching when to use fewer and less. They taught us one of them was for amounts, and the other was for quantities. I’m pretty sure I remembered which was which long enough for the test, but to most people quantities and amounts are synonymous in everyday usage. Dictionaries even use quantity to define amount and amount to define quantity! It’s no wonder nobody bothers to use fewer and less correctly any more.
Recently English teachers around here have been teaching fewer for things that are counted, and less for other things. This is good, but I fear it’s too late.
Let’s hope this catches on. And I hope they’re teaching the difference between “number” and “amount”.
One of my pet peeves.
Personally, I don’t think the distinction is useful, so I ignore it. Use whatever common construction is already in use. If there’s not one, just use less.
I agree. I got mildly irked by the pedantic “10 items or fewer” signs I see at some grocery stores, where most have “10 items or less.” I know it’s right – I used to copy edit for a spell and am an English major myself – but the construction just irks me, as it sounds overly formal to my ears. I would never use it except if I’m maintaining a very deliberate formal level of diction for some reason.
I’ve had to use it when the author or the publisher was determined to conform to Chicago standards. “Good luck with that,” I usually tell them, but I do my best.
I’ve seen the best sign - “around” 15 items! No counting required.
But is it right? The guy who first proposed the less-fewer distinction (Robert Baker in 1770) was perfectly clear that he was merely stating his personal preference. Somehow it’s morphed into an inviolable rule that makes people sneer at signs in grocery stores, when in practice that’s just never been true.
Sorry, I meant to put scare quotes around “right.” The distinction is made in various style guides, so there is a “right” in that context.
I’m hearing the word “resiliency” a lot lately. What ever happened to “resilience”?
They’re both still around. Resilience used to be a verb form, and resiliency turned it into a noun. They’ve followed similar paths, both originating in the early 1600s and taking their present forms just before the American Civil War.
Really? Could you use it in a sentence?