Print

Print


Roger Mills, On 05/11/2012 16:37:
>> Someone wrote:
>>>     it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
>
> And (?)
>>  I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
>>> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
>>> it in formal modern English.
>
> RM Would Queen Elizabeth II ever say, in public, "Prince Philip and
> me will attend Ascot" or "The Prime Minister had dinner with Prince
> Philip and I" ???

No. But some of her grandchildren might. And her greatgrandchildren will. And many StdE speakers of her children's generation already do.

Mike S., On 05/11/2012 18:31:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:52 AM, And Rosta<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> The reason why those who prefer the innovative system prefer it is mainly
>> that it's marked for formality and widely used by others. Language as an
>> effective social--communicative system relies on the impulse to emulate the
>> speech of others. The innovative system is more likely to be used by
>> speakers who have, or feel they have, a greater distance between their
>> usual, colloquial dialect and their formal dialect, and aiming for features
>> marked as formal makes them more confident of hitting the target. Like you,
>> I too cringe at hearing the innovative system used, but think that's just
>> my own reprehensible snobbery.
>
> In general, if people are using an innovation aiming to sound formal but
> failing, I don't think it's snobbery to gently make them aware of that.

But whether or not they're failing depends on who's listening. In most contexts in which the innovative system is used in order to sound formal, it succeeds in sounding formal and causes no cringeing among hearers. Furthermore, even when it causes cringeing it will still sound formal, since it is predominantly used in formal registers.  I'm describing British usage here; things might be different elsewhere.

> In this particular case, perhaps I am in denial and "between you and
> I" is the new normal. But I suspect that it's passing junk that will
> eventually be prescribed back into the margins.  

"Between you and I" turns out to be a special case, doesn't it; it's not always an exemplar of the innovative system. As for the innovative system overall, I suppose you call it junk because you take it to be ephemeral, and take the ephemeral to be junk; as a system in its own right it's not junky. I am happy to bet that it is not ephemeral and to bet even more that it won't be prescribed back into the margins. Rather I would predict that it will become increasingly entrenched as a formal register phenomenon, and that if it eventually does fall out of use then it will be because of a rejection of it because it is high register and not because of prescriptivism.

yuri, On 05/11/2012 19:08:
> The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And
> Rosta and Roger Mills.
> Roger's fish will be passed onto the girls at his request. If I'm ever
> in the vicinity of And I'll need to be reminded to give him his prize.

I'll donate mine to your daughters too.

> (Are you _this_ And Rosta
> http://www.uclan.ac.uk/ahss/journalism_media_communication/english_linguistics/rosta_and.php
> ?)

Yes and no. That is not in fact a picture of me. But of all the innumerable And Rostas that walk the earth, I am the one that that webpage so uninformatively describes.

--And.