Thar Shaddin

Would you correct the sentence my brother and me play ball to read:

Me and my brother play ball.

My brother and I play ball.

I've always been told that it's based on usage. If the sentence can be said using "I" then it's My brother and I.

I'm not a fan of using 'myself' in a regular sentence when I can say 'me' instead. So, what's right.

I defer to our resident linguists on this as I forget the grammar rules for this often.

I believe it is: My brother and I play ball, and it is based on the reasoning you mentioned.

I frequently refer to myself as a linguist, since I practice theoretical and applied linguistics for a living, and since it's less confusing than calling myself a linguistician, which the spell-check says isn't even a word. The difference is, linguistician is someone who studies the field of linguistics, whereas a linguist usually refers to someone who speaks a bunch of languages.

Anyway, linguistics is a field that is descriptive, meaning we describe how people use language based on observations, not prescriptive, meaning telling people how they "should" use language. In other words, the only things we would call "grammatically incorrect" are things that native speakers of the language would not say.

"Ball me and brother my play" is an example of something that we would say is grammatically incorrect, because it's nonsensical to native English speakers. If, however, we come across an isolated dialect of English that does say this, where people mutually understand such an utterance, then in that dialect, it is NOT incorrect. So in other words, any of those example sentences you gave me are totally correct, in that they make sense in English.

The people who would disagree are grammarians, and in the linguistics community, that's basically a term of insult. They're the ones who correct your grammar when you are speaking colloquially. Anytime someone says to you "You mean 'My brother and I play ball,'" score a point for team linguistics and say "Actually no, I fucking said what I wanted to say."

But I'll bite, if we do want to talk about the prescriptive grammar, it's like this (hey, I'm not a grammarian bastard, but I do know my textbook grammar like a mofo):

"I" is a subject, and "me" is an object. Regardless of who the agent of the verb is, if the personal pronoun is the direct object of a verb or the object of a preposition, or any of several other types of object, then the prescribed form is "me." If the pronoun is the subject, then the prescribed form is "I."

However, as native English speakers, we are all exposed on a very regular basis to constructions like "Me and my brother play ball," where the subject "me" is in its object form. However, we rarely encounter constructions like "Me play ball," and none of us, as native English speakers, would ever say that. There may come a time in the future where this is a normal thing to say (Just as it probably was once not at all normal to say "Me and my brother"), but for right now, grammarians AND linguists agree "Me play ball" is not right.

So, Ree, your mnemonic device for prescriptive grammar is basically correct: imagine that "my brother" isn't in the sentence, and see what sounds right, since we only seem to use the "me" form of the subject pronoun when it's in an "and" construction. Then your sentence will be sparkling clean to the grammarian eye.

Also, "myself" has a few grammatical functions, as what we call an intensive, and as a reflexive pronoun. "I will introduce myself" and "I found myself utterly lost" are examples of the reflexive usage. "I" am the subject and the object of the verb, so most people will choose to use the reflexive form for clarity. "I found me utterly lost" is not something many people would say today, but was standard in Early Modern English. The intensive form is used in these example: "I have seen it myself," or "I, myself, feel differently."

Thanks, Pags.

I very nearly, almost understood all of that.

I asked because Kevin's teacher told him that My brother and me is the correct format for that sentence.

Interesting! Indeed, in textbook grammar, "My brother and I" is the only acceptable form. I think the fact that teachers are starting to say differently, though, is an indication that change is on the way for this form. Not that I think teachers are all experts on textbook grammar (that's something else that has changed in the past fifty years or so, don't you think?), but the fact that they teach these things is probably indicating change.

It's kind of cool because I'm sure "Me play ball" won't fall into favor for quite a long time, so it presents a puzzle for syntacticians to analyze the structure of "My brother and me play ball." When the subject is compound, like that, the personal pronoun is parsed differently by the brain, it seems. Neatooo.

I have to agree with Pagusel on this. The purpose of language is to communicate; as long as someone can read it and understand the message, then that's all that matters. It's silly to treat English as if it's some divine law that predates the human race.We created it; it exists to serve us, not to cause headaches. When it comes to that particular example, I would just go with whatever seems to flow better in the paragraph. Perhaps if I felt like the word "I" was being used too liberally in the previous sentences, it would seem better to go with "me and my brother" to give my I's a rest (pun intended). Gosh, now I can't stop using "I"! This whole paragraph is driving me insane!

New Paragraph:

That comment about linguist and linguistician is an interesting one. I didn't realize there was a difference, and even now my internet browser is urging me to correct the latter. I feel like there are a number of words that don't get respect on spell-check, or even in the dictionary.

A few years ago I had a big argument with my Microsoft Word program over the term "philanderous", which every dictionary I have come across refuses to acknowledge as a real word. But if you can philander, then why can't you be philanderous? It makes perfect sense to me, and without it some sentences would just sound awkward. "Philanderer" isn't always enough if you want to describe someone, especially if you were describing two traits in one sentence. Saying "he's a philanderer and a boxer" just doesn't flow as nicely as "he's a philanderous boxer", which is why I have been forced to disobey the dictionary on occasion. Nevertheless, I am neither a linguist, nor linguistician, so I'd be the last person to know. José Saramago is one of my favourite authors, so I blame him for my issues with conventional writing.

Prescriptive or not, anyone who says "I would of" done something, or "I could care less" can go to hell.

Language is reflexive. It wrestles between the plebs and the grammarians, and sometimes the plebs need to die.

In the end though, if language deteriorates (or progresses - half empty, half full, take your pick) it's okay because it makes people who are masterful at the older stuff sound that much more impressive. Add a top-hat and monocle, and revel in the power structure provided by the grammarians.

Isaac Arcott wrote:"Philanderer" isn't always enough if you want to describe someone, especially if you were describing two traits in one sentence. Saying "he's a philanderer and a boxer" just doesn't flow as nicely as "he's a philanderous boxer", which is why I have been forced to disobey the dictionary on occasion.

Then why could you not say that he is a boxous philanderer? A runner isn't runnous, a writer isn't writous, and a reader isn't readous; that's why philanderous isn't a word. You could instead say that he is a boxer who philanders? A philandering boxer?

I can agree with the point that it only matters that language can be understood, but just because something sounds right, doesn't mean that it is. Then again, I suppose all of those words - runnous, writous and readous, as well as philanderous - could become proper words at some point as well. You could also use the term "adulterous", right?

I understand why grammarians are so mad when we see things that break the current textbook rules, just as grammarians 150 years ago were probably pissed when people started *misspelling* "to-day" as "today."

The reason people get so upset is probably because it seems unfair to have spent so much time learning a great deal of complicated grammar stuff, only to have people who apparently did not put in the same efforts being treated as having perfectly valid communication skills. I myself do cringe when I read "would of" (this being, of course, the way some people have started spelling the word "would've"), and I do find myself feeling like "Don't you understand the words you are saying??" But linguistics is a science (okay, a soft science), a science where we observe people, and if that's the way people communicate, it's my job to document it neutrally.

I wouldn't say language "deteriorates" or "progresses," because that would seem to indicate there has been a shift in people's ability to communicate in the time of, say, Early Modern English and people's ability today. Everyone has always been able to communicate properly, no better and no worse. It just changes. It also comes loaded with the idea that there is an inherent level of "quality" to language, and this is a concept that has been used throughout history to discriminate ("They are a primitive people; their language is primitive!")

There is a place for grammarians, and that's to prescribe the kind of language necessary to get by in certain situations. For example, it's important for journalists to understand the style guides of the publications they write for. New York Times and Associated Press are forever at odds with each other over preferred styles in syntax, to the point that some A.P. stylistics are called out as grammatically incorrect by some periodicals. (e.g. "President Obama Wednesday attended the conference" is in Associated Press style, and frowned upon--in fact declared downright wrong--by many other journalistic style manuals)

Grammarians also have a responsibility, to the people they lecture, to keep up on changes in language. I don't think anybody would be particularly impressed if a top-hatted and monocled grammarian told us the proper form of the sentence "I found myself utterly lost" was the Early Modern English "I found me utterly lost."

But, um . . . I know the grammar stuff DOES make some people feel really good about themselves. I don't want to take those good feelings away from you. But it's never a good thing to make yourself feel better by putting others down. That's not linguistics advice, just self-awareness advice.

P.S. Erryl's "philandering boxer" was what I would suggest, I think. Turn the verb into the participial adjective.

BUT, stylistically, I do like "philanderous" because it reminds me of when hookers were described on Chappelle's Show as "fellatious women."

All very good stuff. I think 'philandering' versus 'philanderous', but I do like it. Philanderous as a word, that is.

Since I didn't link this in here for the people who weren't in chat at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

*thumbs up*