Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 March 17

= March 17 =

Grammar question: "Me" versus "I"
By a series of circumstances, I ran across this article: Me and the Chimp, an old TV sit-com from the 1970's. The article states that the original title for the sit-com was supposed to be "The Chimp and I". The main actor/star (Ted Bessell) objected to this title. He said that he would refuse to work on the show, because the originally intended title was grammatically incorrect. So, the producers changed the title from "The Chimp and I" to "Me and the Chimp". My question: Ironically -- isn't it the exact opposite? The initial title was grammatically correct; and the revised title was grammatically incorrect? Or am I missing something here? At the very best, it's a "close call" or a "gray area". That is: Does the title refer to the subjective case or the objective case? The title may mean (subjective case): "The Chimp and I are the main characters in this TV show" ... in which case "The Chimp and I" is correct, while "Me and the Chimp" is incorrect. Or: the title may mean (objective case): "This is a TV show about Me and the Chimp" ... in which case "Me and the Chimp" is correct, while "The Chimp and I" is incorrect. Right? So, how is this such a "clear-cut" and "egregious" violation of grammar rules, so much so that a starring actor threatened to quit over it? And the producers caved in, over it? Does anyone have any insight? Thanks. P.S. The reliable source for the info is cited, but it is an old TV Guide magazine from 2002, so it is not accessible as a link, here on the Wikipedia article page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First, we would need to know more about what Bessell said, or even if he actually said it. And as you suggest, whether it's "The Chimp and I" or "Me and the Chimp" or some other combination, it's not a complete sentence, so there's no obvious way to tell if it's supposed to be subject (I) or object (me). There is precedent: an old book and movie called The Egg and I vs. the song "Me and Bobby McGee". And keep literary license in mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ... not to mention, "The King and I". But, yes, that's my point.  It is certainly not a black-and-white or clear-cut case.  So, it's inconceivable that an actor would make such a big deal out of it (i.e., threatening to quit, if the title wasn't "corrected").  And, also, inconceivable (though, less so) that the producers caved on the issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure TV Guide would be an unimpeachable source for such trivia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That is obvious, yes. But, there is probably at least some "kernel of truth" to the matter.  I doubt some TV Guide editor had nothing better to do than to make up a story out of whole cloth.  It may be a misunderstanding or a miscommunication.  But, I'd suspect that there is at least some kernel of truth hidden somewhere in the actual real-life scenario.  Also ... Query: Would TV Guide really gamble on a defamation / slander / libel lawsuit over such silliness?  If 100% false, Bessell might threaten to sue as the supposedly false and concocted allegations make him look like an ass and a, umm, prima donna, if you will.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And I'm not so sure that grammatical case has anything to do with it.  After all, it would be difficult to phrase "Me and my big mouth" any other way. 2A00:23C1:CD81:F01:A54E:9AA0:DDA9:747F (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If not grammatical case, what else would render the original title "grammatically incorrect"? Is there something else?  Some other possibility?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I got onto Newspapers.com (a pay site) and looked for occurrences of "The Chimp and I". This contemporary item, from an article about the show in general, contradicts the TV Guide claim: "The only reason I wanted the name changed from The Chimp and I to Me and the Chimp was because the original title was too saccharine. The studio didn't agree. They insisted Me and the Chimp was bad grammar. But I got my way." (The Paducah Sun, Dec 25, 1971, p. 42) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See emphatic pronoun. 2A00:23C1:CD81:F01:A54E:9AA0:DDA9:747F (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think people emphasize the "I" in The King and I. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe he got his way because he told them he wouldn't do the show unless they changed the title.  If I were an actor, I wouldn't appear in a show that had a silly name. 2A00:23C1:CD81:F01:A54E:9AA0:DDA9:747F (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. But a title of "Me and the Chimp" is no less silly than "The Chimp and I".  To say nothing of the actual premise of the show, itself!  It was ranked as one of the worst -- if not, the worst -- TV shows of the 70's.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chimps were kind of a thing in that era. Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp lasted for two seasons, so it must have been somewhat better regarded than Me and the Chimp. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's kind of implied. Elsewhere it seems that he wasn't too crazy about working with a chimp anyway, specifically that he was wary of the chimp, concerned it might attack him for no apparent reason, as chimps will do sometimes. The show only lasted one season, and they got through it OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting find from that old, 1971, Paducah Sun article. Is there any way to somehow find the 2002 TV Guide article, somewhere?  Online, that is?    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't found it. But I have a hunch that whoever posted that reference might have spun his own interpretation of whatever TV Guide actually said. One thing where the articles agree is that he wanted the title of the show changed. Maybe it would be best if the Wikipedia article confined it to that one fact. Meanwhile, unfortunately, this leaves your general question unanswered. Seems to me I heard somewhere along the way that some have said "The King and Me" was a better title grammatically, but based on what, I couldn't say. The same problem you cited comes into play on that title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd still like to see that actual TV Guide article, if possible. If such things (i.e., old reliable sources not on the Internet) cannot be found, then what value do any of these type of Wikipedia citations have?   Anyone can type anything, true or false.  No?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a catch. If it's in a published book, that's one thing. But how many libraries keep TV Guide collections? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They should revive the show, moving it to Washington DC, with "me" being Mike Pence. (What, me bitter?) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that "Me and the Chimp" won out because it was more colloquial and would attract more viewers. I often heard my school classmates in the '50s and '60s in the U.S. say things like "Me and him played baseball yesterday." My parents were always quick to make sure we knew we should say "he and I" in such a situation. Jmar67 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Overly correct titles are not necessarily catchy. As with the original working title of a 1950s-1960s TV show, Occupation Unknown. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * First, as to "me" vs. "I", in traditional grammar the original poster is correct. "Sam and I" is grammatical as the subject of a sentence while "Sam and me" is grammatical as the object.  However, this is not always how people speak.  It used to be common for people to say things like "Me and Sam went fishing", but other people started insisting they must correct it to use "Sam and I".  But this led to a common confusion that "me and Sam" should always be changed to "Sam and I".  Hence, as a hypercorrection, people would always use "I" after "and" even in the objective case, and say "He was talking about Sam and I".
 * But there's a second issue. Some people consider it a grammatical rule that when words including a personal pronoun are combined using "and" or "or", the third person, second person, and first person are only supposed to be used in that order.  So by this rule, even if "Sam and me" is correct, "me and Sam" still isn't.  So this is another reason why some might see Me and the Chimp as ungrammatical. Here's a page that describes the rule as a matter of politeness and not grammar. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's odd, the way I was taught, the second person comes first, and then the third person. One's interlocutor is considered more "respectworthy" than a third party. Khemehekis (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it English you were being taught? I have read that some other languages have the reverse rule. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was in my English class. Khemehekis (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the phrase "you and your bright ideas" to rephrase it so that the third person comes before the second ("Your bright ideas and you") sounds odd. 2A00:23C5:840F:1F01:E522:CAD9:682B:BB7A (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what is meant by "person". The phrase "your bright ideas" is neither a literal person nor is it in third person conjugation. The ideas are the possession of the person being referred to as "you". That's why it uses the second person possessive pronoun. --Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Your bright ideas" aren't human/sapient, so it's OK to put that phrase after "you". Same principle as "Me and my big mouth". After all, no one would want to change that Michelle Branch website to "My Guitar and I". Khemehekis (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps it's possible that 'the chimp' was also seen as a thing, while 'me' is a person: me and my piano, me and my chimp. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like quite likely an explanation. Although Matthias Hiasl Pan may object! Khemehekis (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)