Comments on: Weekend op-heads: Essay free zone

By: Gummo Trotsky

Gummo Trotsky — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:36:37 +0000

In phrases like “Kevin and me” (or “Kevin and I”) “and” doesn’t function as a conjunction at all – it’s doing the work of a preposition.

While the sentence “Kevin and me rolled Kim” can be unpacked to read “Kevin rolled Kim and me rolled Kim”, that’s a distinctly artificial construction of the intended meaning – the sort of silliness you’re forced to if you insist that “and” is always employed as a conjunction (even when the sentence context indicates a prepositional usage).

By: Lee Davis-Thalbourne

Lee Davis-Thalbourne — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:16:46 +0000

From RobS:

Your explanation is (1), Pearson’s is (2), or at least is compatible with (2). So can you explain how the evidence supports your theory better?

The simplest way would be to look at whenever she uses pronouns in the context of a conjunction. She may be honestly confused if she appears to randomly switch between the two, saying “X and I” and “X and me” on a constant basis. If, on the other hand, she constantly uses a single variant, then chances are there’s no confusion involved whatsoever – it’s more than likely a grammatical rule that she’s following, rather than a lack thereof.

We see, if we look through her various speeches, that she never uses “X and me” – this should be a red flag that she isn’t doing it for kicks, but is instead doing it for grammatical reasons, and that she actually knows quite well what subjects and objects are (indeed, it would be difficult to imagine that she wouldn’t know the difference anyway – it’s a pretty fundamental one in Australian English…)

Of course, I just ignore the whole issue and use “X and myself”, but I’ve been told that I’m a dirty fence-sitter for doing so…

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:21:12 +0000

“…is a a pompous…”

“…who can’t even spell.”

I see the curse of the spelling and grammar flame strikes again.

I don’t think that went quite the way you intended did it P(p)raxi?

Also I’m puzzled by being called “pompous” and “reactionary”. “Drunk” and “arrogant” would be far more on target.

2/10. Must try much harder or risks being held back next year.

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:36:03 +0000

Big p and small P praxis, please note that the comments policy deems unacceptable:

Vexatious and purely abusive comments.

Do you have a point, or do you just want to abuse Nabs? If the latter, don’t. If the former, please make it.

By: praxis

praxis — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:10:45 +0000

Not Vlad, of course, this idiot above who can’t even spell.

By: Praxis

Praxis — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:08:01 +0000

Nabokov is a a pompous reactionary drip.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:33:23 +0000

A bonus dram payable in person for spotting the grammatical and spelling mistakes in my last comment.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:31:04 +0000

I never make predictions and I never will. But I’m willing to bet one bottle of the Macallan 18 year old* that ole Pearsy won’t be back. One of things I do like about blogging is watching MSM pundits of all stripes getting their arses waxed by the common folk whenever they venture off the reservation and tip a toe in the blogosphere.

*This competition not open to Christopher Pearson or his employees or members of his immediate family.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:14:01 +0000

I hate grammar, unless that school marm Chris Pearson is involved….

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:41:50 +0000

We should have grammar threads more often.