The internet is destroying grammar

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Nereid
"There is a thread where me () had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where () Gokul had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where Gokul and me/I had a discussion ..."

why does the addition of 'and' make you change want to change 'I' to 'me'?

There are plenty of other examples:
"My sister and I went shopping"
"I and my sister went shopping"
"Me and my sister went shopping"
"I went shopping"
"We - my sister and I/me - went shopping"
"My sister went shopping"

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

For the most part, grammar rules serve to maintain clear meaning of sentences.

If indeed there is a rule about 'I' or 'me' in these kinds of sentences, it would be one that doesn't serve to maintain clear meaning! :surprise:

 

[plover]

If indeed there is a rule about 'I' or 'me' in these kinds of sentences, it would be one that doesn't serve to maintain clear meaning! :surprise:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The rule is quite straightforward: use a subject pronoun for the subject of a sentence; use an object pronoun for a direct object, indirect object, or object of a preposition.

"Me and my sister went shopping." is wrong because "me and my sister" is the subject of the sentence and "me" is an object pronoun.

As far as I can tell (speaking as someone who drove my parents berserk saying "me and x did something" all the time as a child ), the question here is:

Why are sentences like

• Me went shopping.
• Wilbert took I shopping.

obviously wrong, while sentences like

• Me and my sister went shopping.
• Wilbert took my sister and I shopping.

can seem ok even though exactly the same rule is being broken?​

It would seem to have something to do with the fact that the pronouns are farther from the verb in the sentences that sound ok. It could also be that the ok sentences rearrange more easily into correct sentences with the same meaning: e.g. "My sister went shopping with me." But I've never seen an explanation for this particular foible of English in any of the linguistics stuff I've read.

 

[Moonbear]

the question here is:

Why are sentences like

• Me went shopping.
• Wilbert took I shopping.

obviously wrong, while sentences like

• Me and my sister went shopping.
• Wilbert took my sister and I shopping.

can seem ok even though exactly the same rule is being broken?​

It would seem to have something to do with the fact that the pronouns are farther from the verb in the sentences that sound ok.

I think that's the likely explanation. I notice in my own writing that I'm more likely to make a mistake if the subject, verb and object of a sentence are farther apart than if they are close together. For example, if I include a clause in between subject and verb, I tend to mistakenly match the verb number to the subject in the clause than the subject that the verb is describing.

 

[The Bob]

Ounly in the UK or Australia. In American English, it's spelled 'spelled'. (But I did throw in a 'u' for you).

Awwww. Thanks

My sister and her husband lived in Italy for awhile and took language classes in Italian. Imagine their surprise when they found out they already knew the Italian word for zucchini (zucchini) and had never heard of the English word (courgette).

Zucchini, I have only hear that word on American TV shows. Otherwise I would not know what it was. Zucchini, what a funny word.

This is actually an artifact of English syntax. In many other languages the meaning conveyed by the English form "noun is verbing" is quite obviously a verb form. E.g. in French, "L'assiette tombe." can mean either "The plate falls." or "The plate is falling." "is falling" is the way English forms a certain verb tense (I think it's called the present progressive, but that might not be quite right). In Russian, there is no word used that corresponds to "is" the way it is used in either sentence in English, but in the translated equivalents "Plate falling" uses a verb, and "Plate -- blue" uses an adjective.

This is why English is the 3rd hardest language to learn. That is why I like Russian. No 'the's or 'a's and once you have learned two words for all of the verbs (which are always almost the same anyway) then you know all the verbs and their variations. No changing the ending for different tenses or for different possesive pronouns.

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. Still like German though. Need to learn more of it.

 

[plover]

This is why English is the 3rd hardest language to learn. That is why I like Russian. No 'the's or 'a's and once you have learned two words for all of the verbs (which are always almost the same anyway) then you know all the verbs and their variations. No changing the ending for different tenses or for different possesive pronouns.

P.S. Still like German though. Need to learn more of it.

While English is certainly difficult to learn, I have trouble seeing the forming of tenses for regular verbs as one of the reasons. (Or am I misunderstanding the intent of your statement?) The English tense system isn't any more complex than that of French (or, I expect, that of German), and is certainly simpler than that of ancient Greek (and the actual conjugations of those tenses are, as a rule, much simpler in English). I've always thought of the complexity of English tenses as being about par for European languages. I agree that the Russian tense system is elegantly simple.

When you say English is the third most difficult language, against what field is it being rated? (e.g. Western European languages? languages with the current top 20 (or top 50) populations of native speakers?)

Euskara (Basque) is often considered the most difficult language in Europe. Though Hungarian has a reputation for being pretty fiendish too. Finnish and Turkish are also supposed to be difficult.

But how much of what makes a language 'difficult' is the comparison to the sort of language that one is familiar with? Many Native American languages don't even break up into words in a fashion that can be compared easily with European languages. (IIRC the technical term is that they are agglutinative languages.) Perhaps it is only because so few people learn them that they do not have a particular reputation for difficulty.

(BTW, the Euskara word for 'plover' is 'txirritxo' - pronounce 'tx' as English 'ch'. )

 

[The Bob]

While English is certainly difficult to learn, I have trouble seeing the forming of tenses for regular verbs as one of the reasons. (Or am I misunderstanding the intent of your statement?) The English tense system isn't any more complex than that of French (or, I expect, that of German), and is certainly simpler than that of ancient Greek (and the actual conjugations of those tenses are, as a rule, much simpler in English). I've always thought of the complexity of English tenses as being about par for European languages. I agree that the Russian tense system is elegantly simple.

My statement was simply compared to Russian. I have studied German and my dad speaks fluent French so I know from the lessons and time with him that they are the same (in retrospect). But thinking about it is should be easier. Let me think:

I play/ I am playing = Ich spiele
You play/ You are playing = Du spielst
He/She/It plays/ He/She/It is playing = Er/Sie/Es spielt
We play/ We are playing = Wir spielen
You play/ You are playing = Ihr spielt
They play/ They are playing = Sie spielen
You play/ You are playing = Sie spielen

As you can see, the German (and the French for that matter) use one set phrase to mean 3 different ones in english (can't think of the third off hand). However, in German (and French) you need to learn the endings to the regulars and irregualr verbs, not needed as much in english. Again, however, in German (and French) once learned they are the same for everything but in english they can vary. It is hard to say which language is the harder to learn but for the enormous number of words to learn, it has to be English, pure and simple.

Add tenses and it might change:

I ate = Ich habe gegessen
You ate = Du hast gegessen
He/She/It ate = Er/Sie/Es hat gegessen
We ate = Wir haben gegessen
You ate = Ihr hast gegessen
They ate = Sie haben gegessen
You ate = Sie haben gegessen

Here you can see that the ending to the english is the same but the german changes the auxilary verb. Normal but unnecessary in english.

When you say English is the third most difficult language, against what field is it being rated? (e.g. Western European languages? languages with the current top 20 (or top 50) populations of native speakers?)

Euskara (Basque) is often considered the most difficult language in Europe. Though Hungarian has a reputation for being pretty fiendish too. Finnish and Turkish are also supposed to be difficult.

Oh this was based on a conversation I had about 6 months ago with a friend (who read it somewhere, but I can't refer to it, sorry).

But how much of what makes a language 'difficult' is the comparison to the sort of language that one is familiar with? Many Native American languages don't even break up into words in a fashion that can be compared easily with European languages. (IIRC the technical term is that they are agglutinative languages.) Perhaps it is only because so few people learn them that they do not have a particular reputation for difficulty.

I don't think it is really possible to compare languages in anyway. They are all unique in someway that could make them seem harder. It is known, however, that a european is more likely to speak english than an englishmen to speak a european language. I like to say I break that rule.

(BTW, the Euskara word for 'plover' is 'txirritxo' - pronounce 'tx' as English 'ch'. )

Good for you. Glad you know that because I wouldn't have.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[plover]

As you can see, the German (and the French for that matter) use one set phrase to mean 3 different ones in english (can't think of the third off hand).

I don't remember ever being taught an explicit third meaning in French (though there will obviously be situations where other translations are smoother).

Also, as I pointed out above, there are also instances where English has one form where French has two. Plus French has a real subjunctive, whereas in English it is only vestigial.

How does the third "you" function in German? Is it ever syntactically distinguishable from "they", or just semantically?

However, in German (and French) you need to learn the endings to the regulars and irregualr verbs, not needed as much in english.

English certainly has its irregular verbs, e.g. sing, fly, lay, light, hang, etc. (these in addition to the usual suspects: be, have, give et al.) (and not to mention archaicisms like 'yclept').

Again, however, in German (and French) once learned they are the same for everything but in english they can vary.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

It is hard to say which language is the harder to learn but for the enormous number of words to learn, it has to be English, pure and simple.

English is a bizarre melange of linguistic elements. Start with a Germanic language, fold in a Romance language, stiffen with pedantic efforts to force the result into Latin grammatical patterns, finally add a dash of this and that from all the corners of a worldwide empire. Now try to get everyone else in the world to find this mess palatable...

As far as I'm aware, one of the things that saves German from being more difficult than it might be is that the language does not naturally pick up words from other languages in the way that English, Russian, and French, (also Japanese) do. (I.e. it creates those sequoia-sized compound words instead...)

I expect that overall English is more difficult than French or German. My point above was just about the tense system, and probably has no definitive answer anyway...

Oh this was based on a conversation I had about 6 months ago with a friend (who read it somewhere, but I can't refer to it, sorry).

Oh well...

I don't think it is really possible to compare languages in anyway. They are all unique in someway that could make them seem harder. It is known, however, that a european is more likely to speak english than an englishmen to speak a european language. I like to say I break that rule.

Well, I can at least read a European language (French, -- 1 1/2 if I count Russian, and when I was in Russia I could speak Russian better than I was ever really able to speak French). Not bad for an American... heh

Good for you. Glad you know that because I wouldn't have.

Aye, you know, sometimes I amaze even myself and all that...

 

[The Bob]

I don't remember ever being taught an explicit third meaning in French (though there will obviously be situations where other translations are smoother).

There is one because my dad goes on and on and on about it.

Also, as I pointed out above, there are also instances where English has one form where French has two. Plus French has a real subjunctive, whereas in English it is only vestigial.

I know but that is because we should really have the same. It simply saves time on trying to understand other people. There are good examples that I cannot think of off hand, again.

How does the third "you" function in German? Is it ever syntactically distinguishable from "they", or just semantically?

I will have to double check. If I forgot to post it here, PM me.

English certainly has its irregular verbs, e.g. sing, fly, lay, light, hang, etc. (these in addition to the usual suspects: be, have, give et al.) (and not to mention archaicisms like 'yclept').

Yes I see that but all you have to do is learn the changes e.g. sing to sung, lay to laid, light to lit etc. and then apply it. In German there are auxilary verbs to learn e.g. habe, hast, hat etc.

I ate = Ich habe gegessen
You ate = Du hast gegessen
He/She/It ate = Er/Sie/Es hat gegessen
We ate = Wir haben gegessen
You ate = Ihr hast gegessen
They ate = Sie haben gegessen
You ate = Sie haben gegessen

That is what I am saying.

English is a bizarre melange of linguistic elements. Start with a Germanic language, fold in a Romance language, stiffen with pedantic efforts to force the result into Latin grammatical patterns, finally add a dash of this and that from all the corners of a worldwide empire. Now try to get everyone else in the world to find this mess palatable...

As far as I'm aware, one of the things that saves German from being more difficult than it might be is that the language does not naturally pick up words from other languages in the way that English, Russian, and French, (also Japanese) do. (I.e. it creates those sequoia-sized compound words instead...)

I expect that overall English is more difficult than French or German. My point above was just about the tense system, and probably has no definitive answer anyway...

English is different in structure to most other languages making it bizarre.

Well, I can at least read a European language (French, -- 1 1/2 if I count Russian, and when I was in Russia I could speak Russian better than I was ever really able to speak French). Not bad for an American... heh

Aye, you know, sometimes I amaze even myself and all that...

Well to make my life story in languages short:
0 - 3 Years old: Learn French, fluent at end;
5 Years old: Forget French;
12 Years old: Learn German.

I understand spoken french, however, still but only spoken. I can speak 2 sentences of Russian and Greek. Also two words of Croatian and Dutch.

Well enough.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[pig]

Also two words of Croatian and Dutch.

What are the words in Croatian? That's where I'm from.

 

[zoobyshoe]

7. Be more or less specific.

This is my favorite. Sounds like something Yogi Berra would have said. He gave us:

"When you come to a fork in the road, TAKE IT!"

 

[The Bob]

What are the words in Croatian? That's where I'm from.

Skeuir Lanimgo

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh, I agree that the ambiguity is most likely what gets my feathers in a knot.

You may complain about ambiguity, affectively, but that won't effect any changes. The affect of ambiguity is happy-go-lucky. This effectively affects all of us here at PF. This is not just a notion I have affected. Affectation is not effective. The effects of an affected affect affect affective responses ([i.e.] they effectively affect the affect of those affected).

Affect aside, the ambiguity caused by confusing the words "affect" and "effect" can affect the clarity of expository prose in posts about physics. Consider: "Will that affect a change?" This might mean what it says or it might mean "Will this effect a change?" You can't really tell.
-------
The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has a particularly long usage commentary for the transitive verb effect:

"usage The confusion of the verbs affect and effect is not only quite common but has a long history.Effect was used in place of ³affect as early as 1494 and in place of ²affect as early as 1652. If you think you want to use the verb effect but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary. The noun affect is sometimes mistakenly used for effect. Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun affect."

The noun affect they are referring to is accented on the first syllable, and is primarily used in psychology and psychiatry to refer to emotion, or the outward appearance of emotion. A patient with a "blunted affect", for example, is one who seems pathologically lacking in emotion.

"The Edison Affect", therefore, would refer to the expression on Edison's face, not the thermiotic effect he discovered.

It was amusing when, once or twice, I've seen references to "the Edison affect", or "the Einstein affect".

 

[jimmy p]

Quote from Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist.

The law is a ass - a idiot.

Get the Grammar Gestapo on that.

 

[pig]

Skeuir Lanimgo

The Bob (2004 ©)

That's definitely not Croatian

 

[The Bob]

That's definitely not Croatian

Well a Croatian told me it was. Never mind.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Prometheus]

The internet is destroying grammar.

Destroy is a value judgment, and one that I do not agree with. As well, I do not know why you cast blame on the Internet.

HUMOROUS GRAMMAR RULES

Some of these are still considered rules. Others remain rules only in the minds of prescriptive purists.

Hey! But I spelled acquaintance correct today

For example, the evolution of adverbs into adjectives, such as correctly into correct, is not the fault of the Internet. Neither is it the destruction of grammar.