Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Does a president shape our language?. Perhaps Mr. Obama's I-for-me is a sign that the next presidency promises to nudge us toward a more liberated view of language, just as it already has with regard to handshakes. Not an abandonment of linguistic standards, mind you, but an acceptance of exceptions when they strike a chord of common sense, or are in widespread use irrespective of grammar guide instruction. Call me an anarchist, but if Mr. Obama wants to do I where people with less permissive linguistic tastes would prefer to see a me, I say: Why not?
Call me an anarchist, but if Mr. Obama wants to do I where people with less permissive linguistic tastes would prefer to see a me, I say: Why not?
Mr. Wolman, you're an anarchist.
I'm not ready to concede this one. I don't think it was, as he describes it, a grammatical “slip.†Yes, speaking on the fly is different from writing a legal brief, but I suspect Obama never learned the rule on this one. And the rule is so simple — it's hardly rocket science — that I'm not ready to give him a pass on this point of grammar. I'd rather see him learn the correct way to do this and stop undermining a simple, reasonable rule that English teachers are trying to teach.
I hate to admit that “lie/lay†may be a different story, but I'm still holding the ramparts on that one as well. For now.
I'm a little confused. Only one example was given of Mr. Obama mistakenly substituting I-for-me, but does he commit this grammatical gaffe consistently? When speaking on the fly, not from notes, it's common to make small mistakes. If the same mistakes are made consistently, then I might suspect that the "rules" are not known. It might be a fun project to read (or listen to) a few of the great non-scripted speeches to "catch" all the errors, not for the purpose of criticizing the speeches, but just for fun.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)