a common grammatical error made by 'smart' people

[SW VandeCarr]

I've noticed that educated native English speakers often use phrases like "The time will come for you and I." when it should be: "The time will come for you and me." I won't explain why. If you don't see it, you need to study English grammar even you are a native English speaker. I wonder if this type of error occurs as frequently in other Indo-European languages.

An even more common error is "It's me!" This is almost universal, to the point that it's probably an accepted exception to the rule now; but how many people even know the rule? This is not equivalent to the French "C'est moi!" which is correct. Again, does anyone know why?

[CRGreathouse]

The first example is classic hypercorrection. I have no good explanation for the second.

[SW VandeCarr]

The first example is classic hypercorrection. I have no good explanation for the second.

My question wasn't clear. Since English is the required language for this forum, I just want to see if 1) PF participants know the rules for these two English examples. 2) Why is the French example correct when on the surface it seems similar the incorrect English "It's me!"; 3) Does anyone know of similar examples of widespread misuse of the equivalent pronoun in other Indo-European languages? (I know the answer to the first question, I think I know the answer to second question, but I don't know the answer to the third question.)

[CRGreathouse]

On thinking it over, I don't think I agree with #2. "It" is in the nominative, so "me" is correctly in the accusative. ("I am it" would be possible as well, but this is different in emphasis.)

I'm looking up some Latin texts to check for their use of ego vs. me.

[fluidistic]

3) Does anyone know of similar examples of widespread misuse of the equivalent pronoun in other Indo-European languages? (I know the answer to the first question, I think I know the answer to second question, but I don't know the answer to the third question.)
Yes I know one big error that many French speaker do. I even saw it in a book (assimil) to learn French for Spanish speaker. They very often say "J'habite à Paris" instead of "J'habite Paris". Google for it, you'll see a lot more "J'habite à..." than "J'habite ...".
Any dictionary will tell you which is wrong and which isn't.
By the way it means "I live in Paris".
Edit : In Spanish many people say and write "darse cuenta de ..." instead of "darse cuenta de que ...". Even the president of Argentina among with many Argentine newspapers do the error.
It's a very common error.

[symbolipoint]

"The time will come for you and I." when it should be: "The time will come for you and me."

Choose "me" because this is the object of a preposition. You choose "I" when the first person singular word acts as a subject.

"It's me!" This is almost universal, to the point that it's probably an accepted exception to the rule now;

One point of view is that how people USE a language determines the rule, but here is a good standard way to deal with this example: "is" as a componant of the contraction, "It's", is a linking verb and therefore equates two subjects. The example can well be changed to "It is I".

[tiny-tim]

An even more common error is "It's me!" This is almost universal, to the point that it's probably an accepted exception to the rule now; but how many people even know the rule? This is not equivalent to the French "C'est moi!" which is correct. Again, does anyone know why?

I disagree with this rule …

"me" or "I" or "moi" in "it's me" or "it's I" or "c'est moi" isn't the accusative, it's the emphatic.

so the question is, what is the emphatic in English … is it the same as the nominative, or as the accusative?

Since English derives from French and German (what is the German for "c'est moi"?), mostly French, it seems sensible to follow the French rule and use the accusative form for the emphatic.

[turbo]

There are far more egregious errors propagating through subcultures of our young people (primarily). For example, don't you cringe when you hear someone say "Me and my friend seen a movie (etc) yesterday."? Either grammar is not taught properly in our schools, or it is ignored in popular use.

[CRGreathouse]

Either grammar is not taught properly in our schools, or it is ignored in popular use.

Thus has every generation claimed....

It was enlightening for me to read this sort of commentary on the degeneration of intellect and loss of the beautiful language in (translations of) ancient Greek texts. Similarly, the arrival of new media has always prompted a similar response. I was similarly enlightened to read the reaction of an older generation to the widespread introduction of reading, which was to destroy the oration of the younger. It put the TV vs. reading (passive/active) debate of my youth, or the present Internet vs. TV (isolating vs. shared experience) of today into a different light.

Sidenote: I can't now remember which text had the reading vs. oratory discussion, which I believe was contemporary to Aristotle. Has anyone else read this?

[ImAnEngineer]

In Dutch we have a similar issue. For example, people often say 'meer dan mij' (more than me), or even 'meer als ik/mij' (more as I/me), while it is supposed to be 'meer dan ik' (more than I).
The error of using 'als' (as) here in stead of 'dan' (than) can be explained because in German one would say 'mehr als...'.

But I've never heard anyone use the word 'me' in a sentence such as 'it's me' in Dutch.

[RonL]

I get lost in all the acronyms, and tex short cuts, I also have a hard time with how people use "a" and "an", but I don't have much room to wiggle in the finding fault department.:biggrin:

[SW VandeCarr]

On thinking it over, I don't think I agree with #2. "It" is in the nominative, so "me" is correctly in the accusative. ("I am it" would be possible as well, but this is different in emphasis.)

I'm looking up some Latin texts to check for their use of ego vs. me.

Actually in phrases like 'It's me.' or 'It's her.' the second pronoun is a predicate nominative. The verb 'to be', as an intransitive verb, doesn't take an object. However nobody says "It's I." or "It's she." At best, someone might say "It is she." However if you extend the sentence to "It is she who first explained the problem." it sounds less stilted. Consider that if we re-phrased slightly "She is the first who..." it sounds perfectly normal as opposed to "Her is the first who...". There's no doubt the nominative case is the rule here. It's really a matter of whether "It's me."; "It was her." are allowed exceptions to the rule. Some feel English has far too many exceptions already, which makes it so difficult for non native English to learn the language.

In the case of the (correct) French "C'est moi"; 'moi' and toi are disjunctive pronouns, which do not exist as such in English.

[Pengwuino]

Thus has every generation claimed....


I remember in the Latin course I took, someone noted how badly the current generation is treating the English language. The professor replied that every generation seems to think the generation after it seems to be destroying the language. That figures but with the proliferation of computers and texting and all this junk, I swear there has to be at least a large acceleration in how much the language is being destroyed right now. Dont u think so 2?

Did anyone else find themselves trying to be more grammatically correct in their postings in this thread? :rofl:

[SW VandeCarr]

There are far more egregious errors propagating through subcultures of our young people (primarily). For example, don't you cringe when you hear someone say "Me and my friend seen a movie (etc) yesterday."? Either grammar is not taught properly in our schools, or it is ignored in popular use.

I agree there are far more egregious errors; but my point is that well educated native English speakers think they're speaking correctly when they say "Joe took Diane and I to the station". These same people would never say "Joe took I to the station". Also "Joe took me and Diane to the station." is perfectly grammatical, but 'refined' speakers probably wouldn't choose this phrasing.

[cristo]

I've got no problem with circumventing grammatical rules when speaking: after all, isn't that essentially where dialects come from? I do, however, like people to adhere to such rules when writing, since it's awful to read passages riddled with grammatical mistakes.

One of my pet hates is when people don't use adverbs like, say, "John ran quick down the street."

[CRGreathouse]

Also "Joe took me and Diane to the station." is perfectly grammatical, but 'refined' speakers probably wouldn't choose this phrasing.

I don't consider that grammatical in English -- aren't numbers supposed to go 3, 2, 1 (he, you, and I / him, you, and me)? In Latin the numbers go 1, 2, 3 (ego, tu, et is / mē, tē, et illum).

I wouldn't say, "I and you go to the store", I would say, "You and I go to the store".

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't consider that grammatical in English -- aren't numbers supposed to go 3, 2, 1 (he, you, and I / him, you, and me)? In Latin the numbers go 1, 2, 3 (ego, tu, et is / mē, tē, et illum).

I wouldn't say, "I and you go to the store", I would say, "You and I go to the store".

I don't know if that's a grammatical issue or one of style. You might say "That's an issue between me and you." or reverse the object pronouns.

[SW VandeCarr]

I disagree with this rule …

"me" or "I" or "moi" in "it's me" or "it's I" or "c'est moi" isn't the accusative, it's the emphatic.

so the question is, what is the emphatic in English … is it the same as the nominative, or as the accusative?

Since English derives from French and German (what is the German for "c'est moi"?), mostly French, it seems sensible to follow the French rule and use the accusative form for the emphatic.

It seems we use 'me' in many places where French uses "moi". French has a complete set of mostly morphologically distinct disjunctive pronouns which are used for emphasis. English lacks disjunctive pronouns as such. Possibly this usage crept into English in Norman times (when many French words entered the English vocabulary) although I don't think it was ever formally recognized as 'proper' English. English speaking countries, to my knowledge, don't have agencies which regulate language like the French Academy and a similar agency in Spain, so common usage often dictates correct speech over time. However, too many deviations from the rules is not a good thing for an international language. Note the rule itself is basic grammar: Predicate nominatives and subjects of independent clauses take the nominative case.

For example: "He is bigger than me", but the extended sentence is: "He is bigger than I (am)." In (correct) French: Il est plus grand que moi. but never Il est plus grand que je (suis). French also has disjunctive constructions which can't be translated directly into English such as Elles et eux sont ici. We can't meaningfully translate this into English using pronouns. Probably the best we can do is use nouns: "(The) girls/women and (the) boys/men are here." What's correct usage in French isn't necessarily a model for correct English.

PS: I think the correct German is Es ist ich.

[cesiumfrog]

There are far more egregious errors propagating through subcultures of our young people (primarily). For example, don't you cringe when you hear someone say "Me and my friend seen a movie (etc) yesterday."? Either grammar is not taught properly in our schools, or it is ignored in popular use.

Why would you expect their dialect to conform to some recently-invented prescriptive grammar? Statistically the street kid has far better grammar than the academic (e.g., the rules may be different but the sentences conform more tightly, fewer malformed sentences, fewer "um"s etc). Disabuse yourself through S. Pinker's "The language instinct".

[CRGreathouse]

Why would you expect their dialect to conform to some recently-invented prescriptive grammar? Statistically the street kid has far better grammar than the academic (e.g., the rules may be different but the sentences conform more tightly, fewer malformed sentences, fewer "um"s etc).

When you (properly, in my view) drop the notion of prescriptivist grammar, how do you determine what is a malformed sentence?

[CRGreathouse]

I don't know if that's a grammatical issue or one of style. You might say "That's an issue between me and you." or reverse the object pronouns.

To me that is an issue of grammar, and "that's an issue between me and you" is ungrammatical. Perhaps this is only my idiolect. My understanding was that the order was strictly 3, 2, 1 in English but 2, 3, 1 has increasingly been allowed. 1, 2, 3 and 1, 3, 2 have never been considered grammatical English.

[SW VandeCarr]

To me that is an issue of grammar, and "that's an issue between me and you" is ungrammatical. Perhaps this is only my idiolect. My understanding was that the order was strictly 3, 2, 1 in English but 2, 3, 1 has increasingly been allowed. 1, 2, 3 and 1, 3, 2 have never been considered grammatical English.

Very interesting. I don't remember ever hearing of or reading about this prescription. I grant you it sounds better. I never say "I and you" but I do say "me and you" about as often as "you and me" depending on the emphasis. Can you give me an internet reference? (I'm not very close to a university level library this summer). Perhaps it's a difference between British and American English. I'm always willing to learn.

EDIT: I found a number of references on the internet, nearly all citing William Strunk's "Elements of Style" (1917). It is a matter of etiquette to place the first person pronoun last, but it does not affect the logical structure of sentence construction which is how I've always thought of grammar. To me, grammar deals with the morphological and syntactical aspects of language. As you said, the style of Latin was to put the first person pronoun first in a compound subject or object (which doesn't surprise me since it was originally the language of big egos: Veni, vidi, vici!). I don't dispute that proper style is important for correct speaking and composition, but I would distinguish it from grammar.

[SW VandeCarr]

I've got no problem with circumventing grammatical rules when speaking: after all, isn't that essentially where dialects come from? I do, however, like people to adhere to such rules when writing, since it's awful to read passages riddled with grammatical mistakes.

One of my pet hates is when people don't use adverbs like, say, "John ran quick down the street."

Dialects are OK (even fun) as long as the speaker also has a command of the standard language. Read through the employment ads: "excellent communication skills" everywhere. Once in a job (even one that perhaps doesn't emphasize communication skills) retainment and promotions often depend on communication skills. There are exceptions of course, but generally success in a modern global economy requires one to speak well.

From personal experience, I can say that non-native English speakers who made the effort to learn to speak correct English will spot grammatical errors immediately and they will not be impressed by native speakers making mistakes or speaking in dialect. (ex: a recently retired US president.)

[0xDEADBEEF]

I disagree with this rule …

"me" or "I" or "moi" in "it's me" or "it's I" or "c'est moi" isn't the accusative, it's the emphatic.

so the question is, what is the emphatic in English … is it the same as the nominative, or as the accusative?

Since English derives from French and German (what is the German for "c'est moi"?)

In German it is "Ich bin's." Which is short for "Ich bin es". Literally "I is it" With a shifted emphasis on the I which peoples who emphasize more with their hands than with their voice don't recognize :)
The object stays in nominative which is justified only with a hand full of verbs that explicitly express that subject and object are the same: to be, to remain (in the sense of staying the same), to become, to be named/to be called. I guess it didn't sound right when you couldn't say I is I, or he is he. Since what is more I than "I" :)

[cristo]

From personal experience, I can say that non-native English speakers who made the effort to learn to speak correct English will spot grammatical errors immediately and they will not be impressed by native speakers making mistakes or speaking in dialect.

Erm.. everyone speaks with a dialect. It's not for a non-native speaker to "be impressed" with or not :confused:

[D H]

What's correct usage in French isn't necessarily a model for correct English.
The same, of course, applies to Latin, which is the ultimate source of claiming that "It's me!" is grammatically incorrect.

The is in "It's me!" is a copula. The rule in English is not that the nominative should always be used after "to be". The rule is that a copula should link two phrases of the same case. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for me." Two copula, both in the subjective case.

How about "It's me!"? One cannot tell whether the it is nominative of subjective. Both "It's me" and "It is I" are correct, IMHO. The latter sounds a bit clunky. The former has been in use for four or five hundred years.

[turbo]

Why would you expect their dialect to conform to some recently-invented prescriptive grammar? Statistically the street kid has far better grammar than the academic (e.g., the rules may be different but the sentences conform more tightly, fewer malformed sentences, fewer "um"s etc). Disabuse yourself through S. Pinker's "The language instinct".Where did you come up with that idea? I find it ludicrous that somehow breaking very elementary grammatical rules, being unable to differentiate between "me" and "I" in usage and being unable to correctly use verb tenses is "far better grammar". You can disabuse yourself of that idea by using language like that in any future job interviews. See where that gets you.

[SW VandeCarr]

Erm.. everyone speaks with a dialect. It's not for a non-native speaker to "be impressed" with or not :confused:

I guess you haven't had to interview for a job lately (as millions of young graduates are doing right now). We're in a global economy. Good jobs in business and government are more and more depend on language skills. Your interviewer and/or your future boss may be British,German, Swedish or an American graduate of a top university. Yes we all speak a dialect, but most countries have a standard dialect. I've traveled in the southern US and even there the good corporate jobs go to people who can speak in the Standard American (SA) "news anchor" dialect. I was in Alabama a few years ago and the local TV news personalities spoke SA.

Having said that, some local dialects are quite efficient and concise. Try "Y'et yet?" for "Have you eaten yet?"

[SW VandeCarr]

The same, of course, applies to Latin, which is the ultimate source of claiming that "It's me!" is grammatically incorrect.

The is in "It's me!" is a copula. The rule in English is not that the nominative should always be used after "to be". The rule is that a copula should link two phrases of the same case. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for me." Two copula, both in the subjective case.

How about "It's me!"? One cannot tell whether the it is nominative of subjective. Both "It's me" and "It is I" are correct, IMHO. The latter sounds a bit clunky. The former has been in use for four or five hundred years.

I don't understand your argument at all. How can you have a sentence without a subject (at least implied)? If "it" is the subject of "It is me", than it must be in the nominative case and "me" as the predicate nominative should, by the rule, also be in the nominative case. But "me" is the objective case (there's no accusative case per se in English since one form covers both the direct and indirect object). Therefore it doesn't conform to the rule. If it's correct, it's correct by exception. You can't make the case that "me" is in the "subjective" case otherwise it could be used as a subject. Give me a well formed English sentence with "me" as the subject.

Also, "It tolls for me." follows the rule. Can't you see why? And I don't see how either sentence is a cupola. (Yes, I'm taking some liberty by beginning a sentence with "and".)

[CRGreathouse]

I guess you haven't had to interview for a job lately (as millions of young graduates are doing right now). We're in a global economy. Good jobs in business and government more and more depend on language skills. Your interviewer and/or your future boss may be British,German, Swedish or an American graduate of a top university. Yes we all speak a dialect, but most countries have a standard dialect. I've traveled in the southern US and even there the good corporate jobs go to people who can speak in the Standard American (SA) "news anchor" dialect. I was in Alabama a few years ago and the local TV news personalities spoke SA.

Having said that, some local dialects are quite efficient and concise. Try "Y'et yet?" for "Have you eaten yet?"

cristo was merely pointing out your misuse of the word "dialect". There is advantage to speaking a more prestigious dialect, though I would hesitate to call one "standard", especially when the high-prestige dialect is often not. In the US the high-prestige dialect (the 'news anchor' dialect) is called General American or GA; it's similar to (but not the same as) the English used in the American Midwest. But few speak it, and even fewer speak it natively. In the UK the prestige dialect ('BBC English', based on a London dialect) is similarly rare.

[CRGreathouse]

And I don't see how either sentence is a cupola. (Yes, I'm taking some liberty by beginning a sentence with "and".)

The copula that D H mentions is the word "is", not the sentence. "Copula" refers to the basic, generic verb expressing existence. The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.

[D H]

I don't understand your argument at all. How can you have a sentence without a subject (at least implied)?
Examples, from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?

More on "It's me", from the NY Times "On Language" column, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/28/magazine/on-language-breaking-the-rules.html
USE "IT IS I," NOT "IT IS ME." The pronoun police can't help making a felony out of what is at worst a simple misdemeanor. Never mind that some of the fussiest grammarians now accept constructions like "It is me" and "That's him" in all but the most formal writing (instead of the stuffy "It is I" and "That's he"). As Jespersen said, "It is and has long been natural to use the objective in the predicative." In fact, it was natural back in Shakespeare's day: "That's me, I warrant you" ("Twelfth Night," Act II, Scene 5).


Give me a well formed English sentence with "me" as the subject.
I not only used a terrible example (John Donne's poem), I misquoted the poem.

Woe is me!

[SW VandeCarr]

Examples, from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?

More on "It's me", from the NY Times "On Language" column, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/28/magazine/on-language-breaking-the-rules.html
USE "IT IS I," NOT "IT IS ME." The pronoun police can't help making a felony out of what is at worst a simple misdemeanor. Never mind that some of the fussiest grammarians now accept constructions like "It is me" and "That's him" in all but the most formal writing (instead of the stuffy "It is I" and "That's he"). As Jespersen said, "It is and has long been natural to use the objective in the predicative." In fact, it was natural back in Shakespeare's day: "That's me, I warrant you" ("Twelfth Night," Act II, Scene 5).



I not only used a terrible example (John Donne's poem), I misquoted the poem.

Woe is me!

"It tolls for thee".

As I've been saying all along: There's the rule and there are the exceptions to the rule granted by usage.

EDIT: Re: Your post 32: All of the sentences (including independent clauses) you used at the top of your post have explicit subjects. In the interrogative sentences, 'you' is the subject.

[SW VandeCarr]

The copula that D H mentions is the word "is", not the sentence. "Copula" refers to the basic, generic verb expressing existence. The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.

I was referring to the the John Donne 'quotes' where DH mentioned two cupolas.

[atyy]

An even more common error is "It's me!" This is almost universal, to the point that it's probably an accepted exception to the rule now; but how many people even know the rule? This is not equivalent to the French "C'est moi!" which is correct. Again, does anyone know why?

You are wrong. This is idiomatic.

[D H]

The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.
That isn't true. I feel tired.

[SW VandeCarr]

You are wrong. This is idiomatic.

Wrong about what? I've been saying that usage has made "It's + objective case pronoun" an exception to the rule governing predicate nominatives. What's the difference between an idiom and an exception? It doesn't occur in Dutch or German which uses the nominative case in this situation(see previous posts by others). An idiom is defined as peculiar to one language but idioms usually do not violate basic rules of grammar.

Who or what decides when exceptions become part to the standard dialect? In France and Spain at least, government affiliated agencies decide. Who decides what's incorrect vs what's a "correct" idiom in English?

In any case, I say in subsequent posts that no one says "It's I." In French the only grammatical way to say "It's me." is "C'est moi."; never "C'est je." That's because "moi" is a disjunctive pronoun which is used in certain well specified situations where the nominative case or the objective case can apply. I suspect this may be where this peculiar English usage came from, but we didn't follow through and adopt the whole French system of disjunctive pronouns.

[tiny-tim]

It seems the issue is whether English should follow the German rule ("ich") or the French rule ("moi").

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_complement#It_is_I.2FIt_is_me, there were two camps as long ago as 1761.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun :smile:

[atyy]

Who decides what's incorrect vs what's a "correct" idiom in English?

Me! It is I that decides.

[D H]

Me! It is I that decides.
Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

[CRGreathouse]

That isn't true. I feel tired.

I would certainly consider this a 'linking verb', but is it a copula? I'll have to look this up. I wouldn't have considered it so. (If I'm wrong, thank you in advance for pointing that out.)

[atyy]

Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

What's right is that which communicates the intended meaning clearly and unambiguously. :smile:

[atyy]

Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

BTW, what's your opinion on "which" and "that"?

[atyy]

It seems the issue is whether English should follow the German rule ("ich") or the French rule ("moi").

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_complement#It_is_I.2FIt_is_me, there were two camps as long ago as 1761.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun :smile:

"It isn't Her!" - I understand there's a point when it's the verb to be, but does it really apply when it's the verb to not be :confused:

[Kenneth Mann]

One of my peeves comes from supposedly knowledgeable TV personalities (like newscasters) who use phrases like "It's so fun"!

The word "so" is almost always an adverb. Probably the only use of "so" as an adjective, occurrs in the case in which it is stated to mean "like that" ( such as when Captain Piccard says "Make it so".)

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

From personal experience, I can say that non-native English speakers who made the effort to learn to speak correct English will spot grammatical errors immediately and they will not be impressed by native speakers making mistakes or speaking in dialect. (ex: a recently retired US president.)

I think most non-native speakers are trying to be as correct as they can. Many of the native types have never really cared. Some, in fact, even carry a disdain for correct use of the language.

Speaking of presidents - - - Of all that I have heard speak, all but three have pronounced the word "nuclear" to sound like "nuc-u-lar", and this includes all since Eisenhower. (I have not heard Obama yet.) One (I won't give his name, but in the navy, he was a nuclear submarine type) had a pronunciation that I could never quite make out. The other (whom I also won't name) was the only one who got it correct, but with a heavy Boston accent.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

What's right is that which communicates the intended meaning clearly and unambiguously. :smile:

'Amen' - - - and what communicates meaning most clearly is correct use of the language. Over two hundred years ago, language experts realized that from century to century muct of the ability to comprehend what was written generations earlier was being lost - - - mainly because the language was being changed too much from generation to generation (it may be 'cool', but it is also detrimental.) As result, considerable effort was devoted toward codification of the language and defining the rules of its use. This worked well until the "hippie" generations came along and tried to throw out all the rules (language and almost everything else). Since, it is my opinion that the language has, to a great extent, been set adrift again. Generations do differ.

KM

[CRGreathouse]

This worked well until the "hippie" generations came along and tried to throw out all the rules (language and almost everything else). Since, it is my opinion that the language has, to a great extent, been set adrift again.

Every generation has said that about the next. :smile:

I think the biggest rift in the English language came around the late 1400s. It's so much easier to read something published in 1510 than something from 1460.

[D H]

I think the biggest rift in the English language came around the late 1400s. It's so much easier to read something published in 1510 than something from 1460.
1066.

From the wikipedia article on Middle English:

1000:
Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.

1400:
And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.

Modern:
And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

[anonperson]

If you don't see it, you need to study English grammar even you are a native English speaker.


Is this error on purpose? Or shall we forgive and forget?

[CRGreathouse]

1066.

From the wikipedia article on Middle English:

1000:
Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.

1400:
And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.

Modern:
And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Certainly it's harder to go from modern to 1066 than from modern to 1400, but I think that the changes from 1066 to 1460 were smaller, year-by-year, than those from 1460 to 1510. (I reserve the right to fiddle with the precise years!)

[SW VandeCarr]

And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.[/indent]


Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Olde and Middle English characters?

[tiny-tim]

Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Old and Middle English characters?

(If you can read 'em, then you got 'em! :biggrin:)

On the Mac character palette, they're in the ISO-8859-1 list between A01 and F0F :wink:

[D H]

Certainly it's harder to go from modern to 1066 than from modern to 1400, but I think that the changes from 1066 to 1460 were smaller, year-by-year, than those from 1460 to 1510. (I reserve the right to fiddle with the precise years!)

The change from Middle to Modern English resulted from invasions of little rats. The plagues forced rich and poor to move and commingle. The language changed as people changed their speech to find a common ground. The invading rats of course did not speak. The change from Old to Middle English resulted from invasions by much bigger pests, the Normans. The language changed in 1066 because these earlier invaders spoke. They introduced a new language. Middle English is a meld of two languages. Modern English is a meld of multiple dialects of one language.

[CRGreathouse]

The change from Middle to Modern English resulted from invasions of little rats. The plagues forced rich and poor to move and commingle. The language changed as people changed their speech to find a common ground. The invading rats of course did not speak. The change from Old to Middle English resulted from invasions by much bigger pests, the Normans. The language changed in 1066 because these earlier invaders spoke. They introduced a new language. Middle English is a meld of two languages. Modern English is a meld of multiple dialects of one language.

I'm quite familiar with this, yes. I've studied linguistics, particularly Indo-European languages.

Modern linguists would not call it a meld: the substratum is decidedly Germanic. The language did import around 2/3 to 3/4 of its vocabulary from Italic languages (French and Latin). As for dialects, it was certainly influenced by many, though the West Saxon dialect was probably more influential than all the others together. (Just historic happenstance, as usual.)

Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Olde and Middle English characters?

& was much more common in 1400 than it is today. It was a typographic alteration of the script form of "et", Latin for "and"; you can still see the letters in some of the fancier (=older, naturally) ampersands. ("ampersand", incidentally, comes from "and per se".) It was also used in abbreviations: &c. for et cetera "and other things", today written "etc.".

Unicode has the thorn, ash, eth, wynn, yogh, the long s, and so on.