6 ms·

> It is much like Americans saying "Mel and I", in object context, e.g. "She accused Mel and I", where "Mel and me" would have been right. ... > It is not at a

> It is much like Americans saying "Mel and I", in object context, e.g. "She accused Mel and I", where "Mel and me" would have been right. ... > It is not at all similar to any variation on "Mel and I", which is an artificial rule that English speakers must be taught in school. The form people use naturally is "me and Mel". I think you're misunderstanding here. There's no situation where "she accused (Mel and) I" works. It's not taught in school. It happens because of people "hyper correcting" to match the inverted sentence. "(Mel and) I accused her" which they get corrected to use by the teacher when they say "(Mel and) me accused her".

thaumasiotes 4y ago
I'm not misunderstanding anything. > There's no situation where "she accused (Mel and) I" works. That is true. > It happens because of people "hyper correcting" to match the inverted sentence. "(Mel and) I accused her" which they get corrected to use by the teacher That is also true. But your own example is telling you that there is also no situation where "Mel and I accused her" works. Sentences in that form do not naturally occur in English; they must be taught in school. The correct form would be "Me and Mel accused her". Intrusive R isn't like that. It is a feature of the language, not something dictated to speakers by a formal education system.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  100% wrong, again.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    You like saying that, but so far you've shown no evidence that you have any idea what you're talking about. Compare the article on intrusive R I linked before: > This is now common enough in parts of England that, by 1997, the linguist John C. Wells considered it objectively part of Received Pronunciation, though he noted that it was still stigmatized as an incorrect pronunciation, as it is or was in some other standardized non-rhotic accents. Wells writes that at least in RP, "linking /r/ and intrusive /r/ are distinct only historically and orthographically".[17] Where footnote 17 cites a paper from 1982.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You even cite proof that you are wrong.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        What exactly do you think you're saying?
        ncmncm 4y ago
        John C. Wells has patiently explained to you that intrusive-R pronunciation, while not expected of anyone, is (mostly) not considered to require correction, or to reliably unmask a bounder.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        And what does that have to do with my comments?
        ncmncm 4y ago
        It means not only are you 100% wrong, you also resist education.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > The correct form would be "Me and Mel accused her". No it isn't. You'd never say "Me accused her". If you don't like the inversion its perfectly fine to say "I and Mel accused her", but using "me" for the subject is never correct.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > but using "me" for the subject [within a coordinated subject] is never correct. Why do you believe this?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Because it is true. If you believe otherwise, you are tragically misinformed and miseducated. Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers; it only ever occurs through exposure to the misuse.
      - schoen 4y ago
        I'm a bit skeptical of this overall, but it's obviously complicated to get data that filter out the effects of sociolectal solidarity. (Can you get people to speak "naturally" but without priming them to speak or to avoid speaking in a particular register or sociolect!?) There are well-known phenomena like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_(grammar) which can become conventionalized and eventually part of native speakers' intuitions even though they can be contrary to a more logically consistent or simpler understanding of agreement.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers This is not even a theoretical possibility. There are no low-class markers that don't come naturally, because no one is going to make an effort to present themselves as low-class.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

I'm not misunderstanding anything. > There's no situation where "she accused (Mel and) I" works. That is true. > It happens because of people "hyper correcting" to match the inverted sentence. "(Mel and) I accused her" which they get corrected to use by the teacher That is also true. But your own example is telling you that there is also no situation where "Mel and I accused her" works. Sentences in that form do not naturally occur in English; they must be taught in school. The correct form would be "Me and Mel accused her". Intrusive R isn't like that. It is a feature of the language, not something dictated to speakers by a formal education system.

ncmncm 4y ago
100% wrong, again.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  You like saying that, but so far you've shown no evidence that you have any idea what you're talking about. Compare the article on intrusive R I linked before: > This is now common enough in parts of England that, by 1997, the linguist John C. Wells considered it objectively part of Received Pronunciation, though he noted that it was still stigmatized as an incorrect pronunciation, as it is or was in some other standardized non-rhotic accents. Wells writes that at least in RP, "linking /r/ and intrusive /r/ are distinct only historically and orthographically".[17] Where footnote 17 cites a paper from 1982.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You even cite proof that you are wrong.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      What exactly do you think you're saying?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        John C. Wells has patiently explained to you that intrusive-R pronunciation, while not expected of anyone, is (mostly) not considered to require correction, or to reliably unmask a bounder.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        And what does that have to do with my comments?
        ncmncm 4y ago
        It means not only are you 100% wrong, you also resist education.
xdennis 4y ago
> The correct form would be "Me and Mel accused her". No it isn't. You'd never say "Me accused her". If you don't like the inversion its perfectly fine to say "I and Mel accused her", but using "me" for the subject is never correct.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > but using "me" for the subject [within a coordinated subject] is never correct. Why do you believe this?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Because it is true. If you believe otherwise, you are tragically misinformed and miseducated. Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers; it only ever occurs through exposure to the misuse.
    - schoen 4y ago
      I'm a bit skeptical of this overall, but it's obviously complicated to get data that filter out the effects of sociolectal solidarity. (Can you get people to speak "naturally" but without priming them to speak or to avoid speaking in a particular register or sociolect!?) There are well-known phenomena like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_(grammar) which can become conventionalized and eventually part of native speakers' intuitions even though they can be contrary to a more logically consistent or simpler understanding of agreement.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers This is not even a theoretical possibility. There are no low-class markers that don't come naturally, because no one is going to make an effort to present themselves as low-class.