New grammatical constructs???

[Birdbrain]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

So is "Me and Bobby McGee" an example of everyday poor grammar? Or is it a textbook example of "pseudo-ignorant malingering" (Tom Wolfe coined that term) to play up the dirtiness of that red bandana wrapped around the harpoon?

Not incorrect; it's just objective case. Those two famous vagabonds are not the subject of the action in the sentence, but the object, as in, "Crazy Chester came by to see me and Bobbie McGee."

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Birdbrain

Not incorrect; it's just objective case. Those two famous vagabonds are not the subject of the action in the sentence, but the object, as in, "Crazy Chester came by to see me and Bobbie McGee."

Huh ? I agree "Feeling good was good enough for me and Bobby McGee" is correct.

BUT Crazy Chester never came by to see them, because neither he nor his dog
could find them in fog

[Deliberate1]

I confess that I have not read through the entire thread, and apologize if this Breaking News in the grammatical world has already been discussed.

Recently, and after years of heralded intransigence, Merriam Webster no longer regards the use of a preposition at a sentence's end as bad form. Frankly, I never understood the significance of the issue to which they objected.

David

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Deliberate1

Frankly, I never understood the significance of the issue to which they objected.

If I understand this correctly, the practise in question is one that is common in Germanic languages (and Latin, IIRC)... and it can require a "substantial" effort from the reader to wait for the resolution and keep track of what goes with what. I often find myself building a sentence like that, only to overhaul it so it reads more easily (something I had to be taught to do when writing scientific reports).

[Deliberate1]

Originally Posted by RJVB

If I understand this correctly, the practise in question is one that is common in Germanic languages (and Latin, IIRC)... and it can require a "substantial" effort from the reader to wait for the resolution and keep track of what goes with what. I often find myself building a sentence like that, only to overhaul it so it reads more easily (something I had to be taught to do when writing scientific reports).

You are onto something. The report I heard on NPR which revealed MW's change of heart, suggested that the rule, as applied in English, may be attributed to a particular syntactical phenomenon in Scandinavian languages, which are, indeed, Germanic.

When confronting a language other than one's native tongue, it can get tricky, as you point out. I grew up in a town in Maine that is predominantly French-Canadian. It was not at all unusual to hear a speaker, whose default was not English, say "Hey, Monique, throw me down the stairs my shoes." Love that....

David

David

[dilver]

Considering far worse offenses of the English language that are now commonly used by so many e.g. “Ima get me a cheeseburger”. “Why everyone hating on…”, etc., “I’ll do the _____” isn’t really that bad.

But the human race is definitely doomed.

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by dilver

But the human race is definitely doomed.

That goes without saying.

[SFCRetired]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

Me: "Thank you."

Server: "No problem, have a good rest of your day."

Oh that drives me absolutely bonkers.

This is why the English dislike us, we butcher their language. And we are masters at butchering the English language, I don't even recognize it anymore.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by SFCRetired

Oh that drives me absolutely bonkers.

This is why the English dislike us, we butcher their language. And we are masters at butchering the English language, I don't even recognize it anymore.

So, yuh fixin' to skedaddle?

[tinnitus]

Need some guidance from you erudite souls.

What should I do when I'm saying something is "either" this or that, and then I suddenly think of a third option? "So it's either A or B (so far so good), "...or C."

Should "either" be simply limited to one or another, but not a third?

If two options suddenly become three, is "either" now out the door? Or (see below) is a third or fourth option okay to append? Beyond two it feels awkward. Does that just make me some kind of grammar-nazi prig?


ei·ther
/ˈēT͟Hər,ˈīT͟Hər/
conjunction · adverb
1.
used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”).

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

Need some guidance from you erudite souls.

What should I do when I'm saying something is "either" this or that, and then I suddenly think of a third option? "So it's either A or B (so far so good), "...or C."

Should "either" be simply limited to one or another, but not a third?

If two options suddenly become three, is "either" now out the door? Or (see below) is a third or fourth option okay to append? Beyond two it feels awkward. Does that just make me some kind of grammar-nazi prig?


ei·ther
/ˈēT͟Hər,ˈīT͟Hər/
conjunction · adverb
1.
used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”).

How about, "It's either this or that, or possibly even...?"

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Jeff Scott

How about, "It's either this or that, or possibly even...?"

Or "this, that, or the other thing "

[tinnitus]

It's a dog-eat-dog world. And sometimes it's the other way around.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

It's a dog-eat-dog world. And sometimes it's the other way around.

That sounds like something Yogi Berra would have said.

[rdeane]

I have two pet grammatical peeves, both from my local TV station:

"On Tuesday we have cloudy skies with "better" chances of rain in the afternoon." What's better about rain? Could it be a greater chance of rain? Or is there some qualitative nature to the rain?

"The robber took all the money from the cash register and ran away. But "they" could not be found." Sounds like the robber might have a tapeworm or suffers from multiple personalities.