Help With Grammar

[arthwollipot]

It is wrong because "Cody and me" (the correct usage) is the object of the preposition "for"; in Latin it would be the dative case, in English it's objective. It has nothing to do with the verb or the main sentence structure.

Funny - we spent at least 4 years in English class parsing and diagramming sentences. Sr. Mary Caligula saw to it.

Personally I learned more English grammar in Latin than I did in English.

 

[arthwollipot]

Then why apply the same rules to both? Conversational English is different than formal English, and in any case the "rules" are largely imaginary.

This is exactly what I was saying. Spoken English operates under slacker rules than written English.

Preprepared? Why not "prepared script" or even "a script"? The connotation of preparedness is implicit in all of these constructions.

Granted, but I wanted to emphasise that prepreparation is the most important concept in my sentence.

"Try to interpret," please, vs. "Try and interpret."

Aaah, ya got me.

It doesn't matter; the phrase communicates, and I don't see any evidence that reading comprehension is compromised by relaxed grammar. What do you base that statement on? (Or, "On what do you base this statement?")

I base that statement on the many examples of poor grammar that occur both on this forum and elsewhere on the internet. I find it a lot easier to read when proper spelling and grammar are used, and I have read enough reactions from other people to believe that this is common enough to justify generalising from my own experience.

The OP is correct from a prescriptive point of view. I don't have anything against good grammar. But I understand "Larry the Cable Guy" just fine. Or "just finely," I suppose.

When speaking, I completely agree. Like I said, the rules are relaxed for written English. But try understanding this on a first pass.

 

[Modified]

Not in my general use. In my world "me and Cody" is redneck English.

But in speech or in writing you might do it for emphasis and with a pause (or comma if written) after "me", to indicate that Cody was an afterthought or to make a joke about Cody being an afterthought.

 

[Modified]

Speaking of common usage becoming accepted: I was taught to never end a sentence with a preposition but that always seemed like a silly rule. So I end mine as I please. Especially the word upon. EG: "I don't know if Cody can be depended upon".

The Beavis and Butthead movie did a great job with that, starting with a double preposition end:

Bork: "Chief, you know that guy whose camper they were whacking off in?"

Fleming: "Bork, you're a Federal Agent. You represent the United States government. Never end a sentence with a preposition."

Bork: "Uh... You know that guy in whose camper they... I mean, that guy off in whose camper they were whacking?"

I don't think the "off" in "whacking off" is really a preposition though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom#Dealing_with_non-compositionality .

 

[Varanid]

Personally I learned more English grammar in Latin than I did in English.

This times 1,000. I think this is a common experience. Oops, I meant, me thinks this is a common experience.

 

[Didymus]

While we're being picky: "Conversational English is different than formal English . . ." (Minoosh)
In formal English that would be "different from."

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree that grammar is a free-for-all,

I didn't say that grammar is a "free-for-all", I referred to "general use" which is what descriptive linguists use as a benchmark for determining the norms of the language.

and that the rules for written English should change arbitrarily based on the way words are spoken.

Why not? Surely it is better to determine the rules according to how they are used rather than to base the rules on how they are arbitrarily chosen by prescriptivists.

Written and spoken language are already quite different, and the same rules apply to both.

In fact, even within spoken and written language there are differences depending upon the context. I would think that "Back in 5 mins" is no worse, and probably better than, "I shall return in five minutes." if it was written on an informal note. There are also different norms in fiction, news, academic papers, Twitter, comic books, cover letters to potential employees, and internet forums (fora?). But language norms change according to time and region, and in many ways these language changes are not predictable. By that token you can indeed argue that words change arbitrarily according to how they are spoken.

This is why when you listen to someone on a podcast, you can almost always tell when they're reading from a preprepared script.

This is something that you can almost always tell for a number of reasons. People also often slow down if they are reading words aloud from a piece of paper.

It is easier to read good grammar than it is to try and interpret bad grammar.

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "bad grammar". A prescriptivist may get angry at "bored of" and insist it must be "bored with", or they may insist that the third person singular cannot be "they", yet they may also then use it themselves and often nobody notices.

Most of us read good grammar without having to think about it.

Why should reading without thinking be the goal?

Relax the rules of grammar, and reading comprehension slows down.

I think plenty of reading comprehension is possible without having to use "good grammar". After all, we have no difficulty reading and comprehending "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard" and not only does Paul Simon put himself first and use the object first person pronoun, he also fails to use a verb!

Of course, it depends greatly on your target audience.

Yes, and the context. Remember that the OP was watching a TV show in which someone in the show said, "Cody and I". I very much doubt this slowed very many people's comprehension.

 

[angrysoba]

Personally I learned more English grammar in Latin than I did in English.

This is probably true of many people who learn a second language. In doing so, you often get exposed to metalanguage that you did not need to learn (or acquire) your mother tongue.

 

[TjW]

This is exactly what I was saying. Spoken English operates under slacker rules than written English.

Granted, but I wanted to emphasise that prepreparation is the most important concept in my sentence.

As opposed to post preparation?

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Not just a Reality Show Cast Member

Ah, I'm 100% with you here! I'm wondering whether I shall have to train myself not to wince every time I hear that '... and I', instead of 'me'.

I hear the misuse of "& I" in interviews with politicians and others who should know better.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

The Moral

The Beavis and Butthead movie did a great job with that, starting with a double preposition end:

Bork: "Chief, you know that guy whose camper they were whacking off in?"

Fleming: "Bork, you're a Federal Agent. You represent the United States government. Never end a sentence with a preposition."

Bork: "Uh... You know that guy in whose camper they... I mean, that guy off in whose camper they were whacking?"

I don't think the "off" in "whacking off" is really a preposition though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom#Dealing_with_non-compositionality .

Be safe guys and never whack off with prepositions hanging.
BTW I thought that was the funniest lines from Beavis & Butthead. OTOH I never get humor out of making fun of guys for being poor etc.

 

[angrysoba]

I hear the misuse of "& I" in interviews with politicians and others who should know better.

Yeah, this "misuse" was also made by Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Bill Shakspeare, but the latter was writing this before prescriptivists - who somehow mistake Latin for English - invented the "rule".

 

[Anerystos]

For example, many regard a split infinitive as a major grammatical sin. It isn't. Some bloke just made it up in the 19th century just because he felt like it. It has no more standing than a split nominative, which, AFAIK, has nobody stamping their little grammar nazi feet.

For this particular one, see David Marsh: For Who the Bell Tolls pp 36-9. I have seen it suggested that the origin of the "do not split infinitives" "rule" lies in Latin where, of course, infinitives cannot be split because they are all, as far as I know, single words.

As a romp through English Grammar, this is an entertaining book and well worth reading. It also refers to a good many other books on the subject.

My favourite from it is on the use of commas: try "Let's eat, Granny" without the comma. (Please specify roasted, boiled or barbecued. Given that she is a tough old bird, a casserole cooked long and slow might be best.)

My pet hate, though, is the use of "an" in front of an "h". If you mean "a hotel" with the "h" sounded, say so; if you mean "an otel" say that.

 

[Anerystos]

This times 1,000. I think this is a common experience. Oops, I meant, me thinks this is a common experience.

Don't you mean " ... methinks ... "?

 

[Dale H]

Not in my general use. In my world "me and Cody" is redneck English.

Really? You would have a problem with "He gave fifty bucks to me and Cody"? Sounds OK to me, but I freely admit to being a bit of a redneck.

 

[Rat]

A great many of what people think of as the rooolz of grammar were made up out of whole cloth.

For example, many regard a split infinitive as a major grammatical sin. It isn't. Some bloke just made it up in the 19th century just because he felt like it. It has no more standing than a split nominative, which, AFAIK, has nobody stamping their little grammar nazi feet.

It is unclear whether your 'it' refers to a split infinitive or the status of a split infinitive being a sin, which makes this assertion quite confusing. Also, if you don't mind, I am a grammar Stalinist with big feet.

 

[Minoosh]

...Written and spoken language are already quite different, and the same rules apply to both. ..

...This is exactly what I was saying. Spoken English operates under slacker rules than written English...

I snipped these posts, but even in context I couldn't understand exactly what you are saying.

... But try understanding this on a first pass.

To be honest, that would be a heavy lift for me even if it were perfectly punctuated. I need a better background in particle physics.

I have decades of experience editing snarled copy, though. There were different standards for the Net vs. print. Clarity was still important but wordiness would slip through until someone had time to re-post an article after a more careful edit. I agree that providing clean, clear copy is a service to readers and I wish that someone was (were?) still paying me to do it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

My pet hate, though, is the use of "an" in front of an "h". If you mean "a hotel" with the "h" sounded, say so; if you mean "an otel" say that.

I do find that rather distracting. "An herb" works when pronounced as most people who talk about herbs are likely to pronounce it, but "an hospital" doesn't make sense. Who says "ospital"? Do I need to get out more?

It seems that some people use "an" to emphasize the singularity of the noun, as if to exclude the possibility that "a car" may mean "at least one car". No one says "a car" when they mean "at least one car" in normal conversational or written English.

It is additionally distracting because I often work in an odd field where "a car" does mean "at least one car" and it is rather settled that "an car" means the same thing, but is misspelled.

 

[phunk]

My pet hate, though, is the use of "an" in front of an "h". If you mean "a hotel" with the "h" sounded, say so; if you mean "an otel" say that.

Oh god I hate that one too. "A" vs "an" is about the pronunciation of the word, not the spelling.

 

[Rat]

I do find that rather distracting. "An herb" works when pronounced as most people who talk about herbs are likely to pronounce it, but "an hospital" doesn't make sense. Who says "ospital"? Do I need to get out more?

It seems that some people use "an" to emphasize the singularity of the noun, as if to exclude the possibility that "a car" may mean "at least one car". No one says "a car" when they mean "at least one car" in normal conversational or written English.

It is additionally distracting because I often work in an odd field where "a car" does mean "at least one car" and it is rather settled that "an car" means the same thing, but is misspelled.

Are most people who talk about herbs really American? That seems odd. I suppose some Jamaicans and East End Londoners would drop the H as well.