Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 22

= August 22 =

What is the correct wording? Me or I?
Bumped. This thread is too interesting and informative to be archived yet. This thread contains text and references copied from the 15 August 2015 "Reference desk/Language" discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct wording? And why? Sentence "A": I would like you (and me) to draft a new contract for the client.   Sentence "B":    I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client.  I can't determine which is correct, because they both sound good and they both sound bad. It seems like "me" could be correct, because "me" is a direct object of the verb "like". (I think?) But, it also seems like "I" could be correct, because the sentence is basically saying "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract" (in which case, the "you and I" phrase seems like the subject of the clause ("we will draft a new contract").  (I think?)  Help!  Two additional comments:  (1) I understand that these sentence can be re-phrased to avoid this issue.  But, I am not interested in re-phrasing.  I am curious about the correct wording in this particular situation.  And: (2) If the parentheses are causing some type of problem here – which I do not think they are – then erase the parentheses and use the same exact sentences without the parentheses.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Replace "you and me" with us, and "you and I" with "we", and see how it sounds.
 * In this case:
 * (A) I would like you (and me) us to draft a new contract for the client.
 * (B) I would like you (and I) we to draft a new contract for the client.
 * As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.
 * That is, of course, if your definition of "grammatically correct" is "the clearest and most natural way to say it". If your definition of "grammatically correct" is "what it says is correct in grammar textbooks", YMMV, etc.
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A is correct because "me" is an object pronoun while "I" is a subject pronoun. In this sentence, the first "I" is the subject, the verb phrase "would like" is the predicate, "you and me" is the object, while everything following is an infinitive clause, a type of modifiying phrase.  Complex infinitive clauses may confuse the sentence, if you use a grammatical analogue which does not have such length, such as "I would like you and I to go" or "I would like you and me to go" it is clear that the second of those is the better sentence, because the core of the thought is "I would like (something).  Since the (something) is an object of the sentence, you need to use the object form of the pronouns (in this case, me).  Unfortunately, English is horribly deficient in its second person pronouns, which is probably the source of some of the confusion.  Modern English is limited to using "You" for all sorts of second person pronouns (plural and singular, subject and object).  Older varieties of English had a more robust set of pronouns (You, ye, thee, thou, etc.) which would have made the grammar clearer.  Alas, that's English for you. -- Jayron 32 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. OK. It's starting to make sense. I went back and re-read my original question above. It made me think of a second question. Let's examine this sentence: "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract." In that sentence, the phrase "you and I" is correct, yes? It would not be "you and me" in that example. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the phrase "You and I draft a new contract" works as a standalone sentence. The verb "draft" is not in infinitive form, but rather conjugated as an active verb, and as such, "you and I" is the subject of the sentence.  Compare to "It would be best for you and me to draft a new contract".  In that case, the verb form "to draft" is infinitive, so "you and [I/me] is not the subject, but rather the object of "It would be best for...", and so "me" works there.  The clue that usually helps me remember is to look for the verb following the pronouns.  If it's an infinitive verb (to [whatever]), then use the object pronoun "me".  If it's an active verb (no "to..." bit) then use the subject pronoun "I".  -- Jayron 32 07:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "I would like us to draft a new contract"? It's doubleplus-grammatically correct*, because not only is it the clearest and most natural way to say it, it is also the simplest way to say it. (* According to my lunatic-left of descriptivism definition, that is. I'm heading towards 1 000 articles now, written free of unnecessary fetters like prescriptive style and grammar.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. And Jayron32's answer below is good, also.  The actual reason is this.  I was telling the other person that I wanted him to draft a new contract.  After I had typed that, I realized that maybe he was not aware that I also wanted to be a part of that effort.  In other words, the effort (of drafting a new contract) was to be a collaborative effort with both of us (him and me).  If I just stated "I want you to draft the new contract", I was afraid that he would get the wrong perception/impression that he was doing the job alone and that I myself was not going to be involved in the project, alongside him.  All of this came as a quick after-thought, as I was typing.  So, I quickly threw in the "and me" in parentheses, assuming that it cleared things up.  In other words, the project was a two-person job (him and me), and not a one-person job (just him).  After I typed it and later re-read it, the wording seemed odd and prompted me to post my question here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with us/we in English is that (as another one of English's deficiencies) the pronoun has different meanings. It can mean "only yourself and myself", or it can me "Myself and someone else" or it can mean "Myself and yourself and other people".  Other languages have multiple words for each of those senses, a linguistic concept known as Clusivity; in English we need to use the convoluted terms "Inclusive we" and "Exclusive we" to highlight those concept. English has only the one word meaning all of these senses; if you want to specific that only I and you are doing an action, and intentionally do not want to include any third parties in your expression, we/us is inadequate, so you have to say "You and I" or "You and me". -- Jayron 32 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of technical-speak in the responses to both questions. Here's the quick and dirty solution. Leave out the 'you', and the correct form, 'I' or 'me' will immediately become apparent. For example, "I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client." So, leaving out the 'you' results in "I would like I to draft a new contract..." Now, does that sound right? Akld guy (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of "technical" speak in the replies. But, that is because I asked "why".  I did not just want the correct answer, but also the reason for the correct answer.  Hence, the technical speak.  Which I found helpful.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * that may be a deficiency of English, but that particular "deficiency" is shared by a great many languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but it does explain why we need to use the phrasing "You and I" or "you and me" sometimes. -- Jayron 32 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. Above, you are told: As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.


 * Uh, no. Let's keep things simple for a moment by avoiding coordination (or "conjunction" as old-fashioned sources term it). In "I would like us/*we to draft a new contract for the client", "we" is not incorrect because it's unclear or unnatural; it's unnatural because it's ungrammatical. "Us" is grammatical, and it's therefore natural.


 * Right, now for coordination (simply, linking via "and", "or" or "but"). Coordination is well known for doing odd things to case assignment. Few native speakers, if any, doubt that "Let's keep this between us" is grammatical. Few, if any, say *"Let's keep this between we". But we do hear %"Let's keep this between you and I" from a lot of native speakers. What's going on here? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (recommended!) devotes most of p.463 to this. It does not purport to give a simple answer, saying that hypercorrection is very likely to be a factor but does not explain everything. It does point out that the first person singular is anomalous: tweaking your example for person, "I would like you and her/???she to draft a new contract for the client" would present a simpler choice.


 * And so, back to your example. "I would like you and me to draft a new contract for the client": unquestionably grammatical. (Idiomaticity is a different matter. In most situations one could say something that might well sound more natural, e.g. "Let's draft a new contract for the client".) %"I would like you and I to draft a new contract for the client": grammatical for a significant percentage of native speakers of English, ungrammatical for a significant percentage of ditto. (I'm among the latter, as it happens.)


 * Hungry for more? There's this (PDF), this (PDF; yes, only an honors thesis, but one that Arnold Zwicky believes is worth net publication); and also, to show that this kind of oddity is not specific to English, this (PDF) on Spanish. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Very thorough reply. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad if I've been of help. Meanwhile, I notice sloppiness in what I wrote: "'Us' is grammatical, and it's therefore natural." No! Being grammatical is a necessary condition for sounding natural (other perhaps than in some freak constructions), but it's not a sufficient condition. ("You and I and she would like you and me and her to draft a new contract and a new memorandum of understanding and a new lunch menu and a new dinner menu for this hamster" is grammatical but nevertheless bizarre.) Incidentally, while The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language may give you good value, it is large (over 1800 pages) and expensive. I highly recommend the compact and affordable introductory version, Huddleston and Pullum's A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As Akld guy hinted above, the trick to all I/me confusion is to eliminate everyone but yourself from the sentence.
 * They asked Bob and I to buy tickets.
 * They asked Bob and me to buy tickets.
 * They asked Bob and I to buy tickets.
 * They asked Bob and me to buy tickets.
 * The second choice clearly sounds correct, so you would use "me" in this sentence.
 * It works every time, and you don't need to understand any fancy grammatical concepts or jargon. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of the above is wrong. "Me and Bob bought tickets" is grammatical English, though "me bought tickets" isn't. The only time you need to say "I and ..." or "... and I" is when trying to impress linguistically ignorant people, and in that case you may as well use it in object position too because they'll probably expect that. Otherwise, use the accusatives (me, us, him) when in doubt, because that seems to be the rule most native speakers follow.
 * Thomas Grano's thesis (which Hoary linked above) has a bunch of examples that break the prescriptive rules, like "They got there before me" (despite "They got there before I did"), "Silly me forgot to bring a jacket", and "All debts are cleerd betweene you and I" (Shakespeare, 1596). -- BenRG (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, that just muddied the waters. Excellent counter-examples.   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Me and Bob bought tickets" is not grammatical English! It is commonly heard in colloquial speech by people who don't know any better, but that doesn't justify its use anywhere and especially not in an encyclopedia. To avoid the (technically correct) construction "I and Bob bought tickets", the order is usually reversed, viz, "Bob and I bought tickets". Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ben, you really need to distinguish between which context a grammatical construct is acceptable. Most people speak and write in different registers, and are quite capable of Code-switching depending on the context.  The language I speak when I am sitting in a bar with my friends is quite distinct and different from what I use when I am standing in front of a classroom teaching.  "Me and Bob bought tickets" is acceptable in many contexts, but not in the context of formal writing for an encyclopedia.  When you say it is grammatical English, you need to qualify and indicate exactly which dialect and in which social settings it is acceptable.  I've definitely used such constructs my whole life, but I would never write it in an encyclopedia; just like when I am speaking over beers in a loud bar, I will call someone a "fucking douchebag", which would be entirely inappropriate when teaching chemistry to high school students.  Language has context, and rules have context, and you need to be careful when saying something is right or wrong without specifying when and where and in what context.  -- Jayron 32 20:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you say is true. Nonetheless, none of what you say in any way counters any of his counter-examples.  Correct?  His counter-examples were: "They got there before me" (despite "They got there before I did"); "Silly me forgot to bring a jacket"; and "All debts are cleerd betweene you and I" (Shakespeare, 1596).  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, today I listened to an interview with Dyson Heydon, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia and a brilliant legal mind. Heydon J preferred to write his own decisions, as his HCA brother and sister Justices - among other things - used the singular they in their written decisions.

Law is to Arts as Medicine and Engineering is to Science. It's applied history recounting and applied narrative writing. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not useful to this discussion to bring non-standard dialects into it. I'd be interested to know in what social settings would "Me and Bob bought tickets" be acceptable for speakers of anything resembling a standard, mainstream English. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll "cop it sweet" that Australian English is a non-standard dialect. It's only spoken by about twenty million of the estimated four hundred million or so native speakers of English.
 * As an aside, I used to work in an former Australian government department that had this alarmingly sensible section in its internal style guide:
 * Q: Should I use British or American spelling when I write official Department documents?
 * A: Yes. You should use British or American spelling when you write official Department documents.
 * Mandruss, I was pointing out that the practical and effective use of English doesn't always map onto the linguistic prescription of English grammar.
 * It does of course depend on context. Something along the lines of "Me and Bob bought tickets" would be unacceptable in a decision written by a Justice of the High Court of Australia, unless they used it as a direct quotation.
 * On the other hand, Justices of the High Court of Australia do use the singular they in their written decisions.
 * Just sayin', is all. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Harrumph! If I were writing a style guide for an Australian government department, I would mandate the use of Australian spelling, which is neither British nor American but overlaps with both. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * De gustibus non est disputandum as they say in Foreign, Jack. Or in dinky-di, "whatever pickles your wombat". I'll pie floater this yarn into the true wink position at the MCG.
 * I don't think you've come the raw prawn with me, me old coolibah, or me with you in this stoush. (But I can use me loaf - you're a dingo in a jumbuck's ugg boots: Sydney to a brick you're a blue gum's wobbegong for linguistic prescription. But let's not blue about this.)
 * That said, please don't flog the Banksia about this Lamington. I think we're all billy tea with this whole Pelaco, and I don't think our chooks will turn into emus and kick our dunny doors down.
 * Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular name for that dialect, or is that Standard Australian? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, this manner of speech is regarded in non-rhotic and T-glottalised English in England as "maʔe, you havin' a larf, or woʔ?" --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to translate this phrase into Latin?
I want to use the phrase "sic semper tyrannis" but change it from tyrants to machines. I don't speak Latin, is that even possible? 2605:6000:EA01:7E00:1853:F2B3:B466:D59 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "sic semper machinas"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally tried that in Google translate and it gave me weird wrong stuff, but now I try it and it works perfectly. You're magic. Thanks. 2605:6000:EA01:7E00:1853:F2B3:B466:D59 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In "Sic semper tyrannis" (Sīc semper tyrannīs), tyrannis (tyrannīs) is in the dative case and the plural number. The corresponding form of machīna is machīnīs.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) and 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In other words, you want "sic semper machinis". --65.94.50.17 (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)