You're joking, right? Surely even you would agree that eating slugs is just... WRONG! :( Furthermore, if "Me and Joey ate..." is not wrong, could "Me ate..." possibly be right?

Some groups would naturally say "Me and my mates went for a drink". Others would say "My friends and I went for a drink". Both are equally acceptable to the groups concerned.My underlying point is that "correct" grammar is no more than a series of arbitrary rules that have evolved over time, vary by place, and are still changing. Who now really worries about not splitting an infinitive, starting a senence with a conjuction, ending a sentence with a preposition, etcThere is no absolutely correct grammar. Individuals write and talk using the grammar that is acceptable within their individual groups.

I'm getting really pedantic now...As you say, there is correct grammar, but most often incorrect grammar is acceptable, and eventually becomes the new rule. I'd expect a teacher of English to answer a roll call with 'It is I' but would never criticise another for using 'That's me.'The verb 'to be' is intransitive so in grammatically correct English its following pronoun always takes the nominative case.That most of us use the objective case is is a good example of a language evolving..................................I just did a quick search of 'nominative' to be sure I had the right word and discovered that in Dutch 'It is me' is correct and 'It is I' is incorrect. Strange old world isn't it?

As you say, there is correct grammar,

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that what people call "correct" grammar is a set of arbitary rules that those people, as a group, have decided constitute "correct" grammar.For example, I 've worked in India with professional engineers whose grammar was wildly different to mine. I wouldn't claim that my grammar was correct and theirs was incorrect.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that what people call "correct" grammar is a set of arbitary rules that those people, as a group, have decided constitute "correct" grammar.For example, I 've worked in India with professional engineers whose grammar was wildly different to mine. I wouldn't claim that my grammar was correct and theirs was incorrect.

Sorry, I misunderstood.Yes, I'll go along with your argument. If I were able to speak with a broad Texan accent, striking up a conversation using my grammar would earn me, at the very least, some odd looks in a Texas pub (bar?)...

You pedantic grammarians had best stay away from Asia :( Peruse this... the adult Engrish section is especially entertaining... I'd like to meet the person who creates some of the shirts I've seen...http://www.engrish.com/

Some groups would naturally say "Me and my mates went for a drink". Others would say "My friends and I went for a drink". Both are equally acceptable to the groups concerned.My underlying point is that "correct" grammar is no more than a series of arbitrary rules that have evolved over time, vary by place, and are still changing. Who now really worries about not splitting an infinitive, starting a senence with a conjuction, ending a sentence with a preposition, etcThere is no absolutely correct grammar. Individuals write and talk using the grammar that is acceptable within their individual groups.

This is about the smartest thing I read all week!I´ll expand: There is no absolute anything anywhere, only conventions that are useful to groups and are changed or discared over time when they are no longer useful to the members of the group. Heck, if you make your group large enough even the laws of physics are relative: Include Mercury and you need relativity to explain the orbit, dive into a black hole and all bets are off. So there seem to be no absolutes (I hedge because there may just be some universal absolutes out there, as in mathematics.)The problem with conventions is they are like a gravity well: You get pulled-in to the comfort zone where the advantages of your conventions apply, but as your environment evolves and your particular conventions are less useful, you have to climb out of that gravity well (the effort to unlearn a convention) and then you have to expend effort to come-up with a new, more useful convention and expend even more effort to get others to adopt your convention, all the while battling competing groups pushing alternative conventions.This daily battle happens the World over on just about every subject that fosters mindsets, and of course also re: "proper grammar" and aviation,as we read in this forum.The answer is we're all smug in our gravity well foxholes believing our mindsets/convetions apply to everyone else and then we engage in war (words, weapons, whatever's allowed by... convention!) to "win" an argument so we can impose our particular "reality" on everyone else, as if our very existence depended on evryone else sharing our particular mindset. No wonder certain orgs try to impose their conventions at the earliest possible age when neurological development is still "fresh" so that mindset is almost impossible to change after the neuro cement sets.Just a thought... Apologies for the ramble.Cheers,- jahman.

You pedantic grammarians had best stay away from Asia Peruse this... the adult Engrish section is especially entertaining... I'd like to meet the person who creates some of the shirts I've seen...http://www.engrish.com/

love the menu

Of course there are absolutes in grammar. Don't be silly, you guys. I see in many posts a big problem with when to use "there" and "their". Even with folks whose native language is English. Talk any way you want within your (there's another one, "you're") "group". But if you want to appeal to a wider audience, you need to use whatever proper grammar is in use at the time. And don't confuse spoken language with the witten form.Obama: CNFRM MTG WED THS WK? Zuckerberg: OK CNFRMD CU LTR ALGTR!This is no wave of the future. It's a type of shorthand, which has been around for ever.Also, I can't spell for beans, but I know how to hit the "spell check" button. Although ieSpell seems to have a few issues with IE 9. Bob

Of course there are absolutes in grammar

Such as?

No, it isn't:'It is I.''I am it.''It is me.''Me am it.'

I contend that "it is I" & "I am it" are not directly equivalent (even assuming that "It is I" is correct).E.g for illustration.:"Who is the captain?"; "The captain is me; it is me." or, "I am the captain; I am it." (but never, "The captain is I").The French say, "C'est moi" not "C'est je". French translates "I am it" to "Je le suis". :(

Is it just me, or do more people use the term "pedantic" now because of that one Simpsons episode?

Such as?

Well, how about what I alluded too in the next sentence of that post. You really must use the proper word in the proper place if folks are to understand you. I think so many of the grammar rules we all hate are there so that everyone who adheres to them can understand each other clearly. I see many times in these forums where arguments start because people misunderstand each other. "My hair is brown." and "My hare is brown." are two completely different things. The dangling participle, "The bird was observed using binoculars." is an example of how easy it is to confuse the facts(I didn't know birds knew how to use binoculars). In a world free of any type of absolutes, I could say this: " glommp figmock ddert xxzqwerthfgty h mooj." and one of two things might happen.1. I know exactly what that means, but no one else would. So why bother.B. Everyone would know what I mean. That would be nice.Ain't gonna happen, especially since I can't pronounce "xxzqwerthfgty".Bob

I contend that "it is I" & "I am it" are not directly equivalent (even assuming that "It is I" is correct).E.g for illustration.:"Who is the captain?"; "The captain is me; it is me." or, "I am the captain; I am it." (but never, "The captain is I").The French say, "C'est moi" not "C'est je". French translates "I am it" to "Je le suis". :(

Surely, "it is I" must be correct.Michelle ("I shall say this only once .....") says it all the time.Although, she's French, right ? :( Rob

In a world free of any type of absolutes, I could say this: " glommp figmock ddert xxzqwerthfgty h mooj." and one of two things might happen.1. I know exactly what that means, but no one else would. So why bother.B. Everyone would know what I mean. That would be nice.Ain't gonna happen, especially since I can't pronounce "xxzqwerthfgty".Bob

I won't comment on you (your ?) switching from numeric (1.) to alphabetic (B.) enumeration.But since I'm Dutch, I *assume* you did that intentionally :( By the way, me (my ?) "assuming" that does prove your point about miscommunication though.And as far as " glommp figmock ddert xxzqwerthfgty h mooj." is concerned: I'm sure I heard a Welchman say that when I was on holiday in Wales last year ..... :( Cheers, Rob

This is an interesting thread. I think Jahman made some especially great points about the evolution of language, or at least the perception of it from one generation to the next. I wouldn't have a problem with this hideously degraded new vernacular if it added something truly useful to our communication in exchange, but instead it just seems like grunting via keyboard. We think almost exclusively in language, past the age of 4-6 anyway, so, the way I see it, the smaller our vocabulary becomes today the less our ability to translate thoughts into real world substance or action will be in the future. That's a future that scares me. That's a future without great new inventions or space travel, a future without sufficient resolution of language to communicate the differences between one element and another, when everyone has inevitably forgotten how to spell "Hidroj3n".When the Oxford dictionary added "bada bing" to their lexicon, that was the day I realized Queen's English was truly doomed. It was our last hope.The only part that I really can't abide these days though is the addition of "lol" to the end of just about every statement I see online, regardless of whether or not the object of the statement has any humourous properties whatsoever..."That's a tree. lol!"A tree is not funny. It's a tree.I should say that my opinions only concern native English speakers. I hugely applaud anyone who attempts to learn new languages. I am certainly terrible at it myself!Perhaps I'm entirely wrong though. Maybe this is just a necessary and painful step before entering the Matrix. In there we should only have to remember 1 and 0 after all.-Mike