In the TV show, Ghost Whisperer, we're now seeing an extension from the use of "I" as an indirect object pronoun to its use as a direct object pronoun.

I can't remember exactly what the show's character, Melanie, said, but it was something like "Do you want Jim and I to do it?"

This appears to have started in the USA. I first became aware of it years ago in the expression "between you and I" but it's spreading, both geographically, beyond the USA, and into other parts of the language.

I have yet to hear anyone say something like "Do you want I to do it?", any more than we hear people say "Did you give it to I?" I suspect that what we're really seeing is a move towards using subject form pronouns in object positions only when linked by conjunctions, or perhaps only with the conjunction "and".

Add to that the use of object form pronouns in subject positions, "Me and Fred went to the shops" - which is similar to something I heard Delta Goodrem say in an interview - and it's becoming a total mess. Again, I haven't heard anyone say something like "Me went to the shops".

So here's my hypothesis as to what the grammatical rule is becoming:

a) In the subject position, the subject form pronoun is used unless the pronoun is linked by a conjunction, in which case the object form pronoun is used.

b) In the object and indirect object position, the object form pronoun is used unless the pronoun is linked by a conjunction, in which case the subject form pronoun is used.

Future grammarians are going to have a field day with that.

Sylvia.

I blame the skoolteechurs. They am too busy wiff pumping kids heads full of PC rubbish instead of teechin thum proper grammur an spellin.

I don't see the problem here. When "Jim and I" or "you and I" is used, that is actually the grammatically correct usage.

Bugsy, I'm not sure whether you're just trying a wind up, but anyway, see the personal pronoun section of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrect

And also

http://www.bartleby.com/68/31/831.html

http://www.bartleby.com/68/94/5794.html

Despite a certain state of flux in usage, there is no doubt in my mind that standard English still requires

"Do you want Jim and me to do it?"

and generally the phrase is always "between you and me", never "between you and I".

Sylvia.

Ah, yes now me see. Me retract my former statement. But why anybody would be concerned about it is beyond I.

The character Kylie Mole has a lot to answer for.Instead of "she said", we constantly hear,"she goes".Where does she go with such a poor grasp of grammar and syntax?

The pro-nouns I'm afraid,along structural grammar have prostituted themselves in the name of sloth.

Personally, I and I blame it on the Rastafarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarian_vocabulary

Bugsy,

I am concerned about it because I find it jarring. When one is listening to someone talk, or reads something, one has to fit what one encounters into one's internalised model of the language in order to understand it. Without that, it's just a jumble of words. If it doesn't fit the model naturally, it requires a sort of double-take to fit it into the model allowing for errors.

In time, I suppose, my internalised model will adapt to accept these incorrect forms, and I'll no longer notice them. Except that as long as the error continues to expand across the language, the model will never be current.

As something of an aside, I encountered the following

"Hawley has since moved out of the multi-million dollar Greenwich pile that is home to he and Antonia's children..."

in a Daily Telegraph article today. Now, it may just be a mistake, but I wonder whether the "between you and I" effect is now contaminating this kind of sentence as well. I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to determine what's wrong with it, and what it should say instead ;)

Sylvia.

Bugsy, we should be concerned as our language, which evolved and spread all over for hundreds of years, is now degenerating towards a state where it will be unintelligible to those who do not use the same slang or bad grammar, “know what I’m sayin’?” The pronoun misuse is but part of the disease.

Another example of the “she goes” type of bad grammar is the “I was like” instead of “I said”. This one comes up all over. The so-called stars of TV and film almost always talk that way.

Another thing I have noticed is the amount of times people say “um”, using it almost as part of a sentence. Even experts talking on their own subject have a high “um factor”. Lately, TV interviewers have also succumbed and "um" their way along.

Quote from Judge Judy, "Um is not an answer".

Even newspaper journalists are assaulting grammar with gems such as starting a sentence (in print) with “Hey”.

Our language is in danger.

Um, if anything the history of language has taught us anything it's that it takes on a life of it's after a fashion. It evolves. When the majority of a people use the pronouns in that particular manner, then it will become the "correct" usage, if only within a dialect to start with.

One person's disease is another's evolutionary mechanism. You and your ilk trying to preserve a 'pure' language are like King Canute on this score. Relax, there's nothing you can do about it.

Bugsy, your view is typical of the lazy attitude that is affecting language. It's not a question of "pure" language, as new words must be adopted for new inventions and concepts but you seriously can't think that the backward slide of grammar etc. is language evolving.

If everyone invents their own rules for language, we won't end up with new dialects, just a population that can't communicate with each other.

While dialects have certain pronouncation differences and words unique to them, the basics of the language are steady. That's why English, Americans and Australians can mutually understand each other. We have the same basic rules.

Lazy attitude? I prefer to think that I have confidence that we will not lose the ability to understand each other, that's just hyperbole. We already have custodians of the rules of language in educational and publishing institutions, you need not fear. Cries of "We are losing our language!" is more often than not merely the lament of the pedant.

There are two errors of grammar in that sentence."Hawley has since moved out of the Multi milliom dollar Greenwich pile,that was home to himself and Antonia's children." "is" was incorrect since Hawley and Antonia's children had already left,and also the use of the incorrect pronoun "he" instead of "himself".

Time for everyone to start watching the re-run of the Story of English on SBS perhaps?
Language changes. Word meanings change. What is correct for one generation will not be correct for another.
What is important is that we understand one another.
I'll remind you of one of my favourite quotations. It comes from the person who got International Literacy Year off the ground, "The most important thing a human being learns to do is communicate." (Cath Gunn)

Arjay,

I was unaware of the factual circumstances. I assumed that the intent was "Hawley has since moved out of the multi-million dollar Greenwich pile that is home to *his* and Antonia's children..."

As regards the original topic, I remain bemused as to how these changes spread. The "between you and I" phenomenon seems to have arisen in the last thirty years or so. Before that I don't remember hearing it. This seems to imply that there was a period during which only a small minority of people were making the mistake, and that they persisted with it despite being surrounded by the majority who were getting it right. It also implies that either people who were getting it right started copying those who were getting it wrong, or at least that younger people selectively copied the erroneous usage rather than the more widespread correct usage. I find that hard to fathom, even in the light of the phenomenon of hypercorrectness.

Communicat,

Yes, certainly languages change, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, or even tolerate it. There is no good reason not to seek to prevent it as far as possible.

Even though it's true that we won't find ourselves lumbered with a language that doesn't function, the constant change gradually makes works written or recorded earlier inaccessible to all but specialists. It will equally make our current work inaccessible to our descendants. Shakespeare is already quite difficult for an English speaker (though maybe it always was). Old English is a foreign language for practical purposes.

Another reason for objecting to changes is that during the transition, we have a situation where there is no clear cut agreed grammatical rule. This can obviously lead to considerable friction when a subordinate writes something one way, and a superior insists on its being changed in a way that the subordinate considers wrong.

So overall, I don't have to like it, and I don't.

Bugsy, "We already have custodians of the rules of language in educational and publishing institutions" is my point exactly. Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks.

So is the choice to be pedants or mumbling, unintelligible speakers of multitudinous dialects? Some standard should be kept. Let language progress but not diverge along many paths.

Wow Jack, nice rant. I totally love this gem: " Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks."

Man, that's classic. I can see our language is in good hands.
LOLDONGS

Hi, Bugsy, totally loved your reply to my 'rant'. Unfortunately I totally didn't understand your 'LOLDONGS' sign-off. Could it be 'LOL with knobs on'? Or am I totally like wrong, um, ya know?

BTW, I stand by my 'rant'. Totally.

Jack The Lad: "Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks."

It worries me that people actually believe this.

I disagree with many individuals on both sides of the political divide, but I'm not so foolish as to believe either side are fighting to 'bring down the west'.

The notion that university professors are part of some ideological conspiracy designed to destroy western civilisation is ludicrous.

Then to say that a fall in language standards is also a cog in this grand design... honestly it would be quite amusing if it wasn't so concerning.

Still, I dare say that throughout history, those who fear change have expressed the exact same sentiments time and time again.

The reason why "I" is used my many people instead of "me" is because they actually think it is correct and are basically uneducated. It is the same as using "there's" in the plural when it should be "there're".......as in "there's lots of people over the other side"
We also seem to have an increasing habit of using "than what" as in "it's better than what I managed" In this case "than" is redundant and bad grammar.

TurnRightThenLeft, before you dismiss my statement, read 'Why Johnny Can't Think' by Robert W Whitaker. He is a former professor so was part of the 'system' and has all the inside knowledge.
Do you seriously think that the political Left don't want to see the downfall of the West.
I don't fear change as long as it's progress. Backward sliding educational standards are worrisome.
Another good reference is Patrick J Buchanan's 'The Death of the West'.

This is just getting funnier. From pronouns to White Supremacy.
Onya Jack, you old sock.

LOLSTIKA!

I'm glad that the future of the language isn't in your hands, Bugsy, as you are a prime example of its degradation. Onya.

I like how you used LOLDONGS but couldn't explain its meaning. I suppose that the same goes for LOLSTIKA.

Where did anyone mention 'White Supremacy", or can't you answer that either? You must be one of those who, when faced with criticism of leftist policies, automatically yells, 'racist', 'Nazi' or 'fascist' without any forethought.

Your're right, it is getting funnier.

Allow me to clarify, jack. With the advent of text messaging and internet communications software, the term LOL was adopted as an acronym for 'laughing out loud.' As far as the STIKA goes, I would say it's being likened to the word 'swastika' in an effort to highlight the paranoia of your belief that the academic establishment is some kind of evil conspiratorial junta attempting to bring down the west.

I find it interesting that you express concern at backwards sliding educational standards, but you're not aware of the significance of LOL. This is a term that has evolved in recent years in response to rapidly increasing use of technology.

I suspect that the youth who you say are the product of reduced educational standards, are far more adept at using this technology than you are, which leads me to hypothesise that perhaps, it isn't falling educational standards as much as changing educational standards - which would indicate this it is change you're fearful of, after all.

I'll give Jack the benefit of the doubt that he's not a sock puppet, and point out that it was him who introduced the writing of Bob Whitaker into the discussion. A cursory reading of Whitaker's website reveals his "white supremacist" leanings.

It's not all that surprising that someone who perceives a conspiracy among "leftist university professors" to "bring down the west" would be indifferent to the white supremacist ravings of one of his heroes.

Well, pickle my herring and call me Sven. Actually Jack, I do not yell "fascist" or "Nazi" at all, I leave that to the hippies and shrill nutbags. But Robert Whitaker is a self-confessed, shall we say, "racially aware" person.
http://www.natall.com/adv/2004/07-03-04.html

You are right about one thing though, the future of our language is not in my hands, but neither is it in yours or any other individuals and I take heart in that.

I'll also give you a freebie: http://lolstika.ytmnd.com/

I'll leave loldongs up to you to work out for yourself and give you another one, lulzcow.

TurnRightTurnLeft, I was aware of the meaning of the acronym, LOL, it was when additions were made that I was puzzled. I still don’t know what LOLDONGS means (though I made a guess in an earlier post).
I don’t see how you relate the Swastika to paranoia. It is an ancient Indo-European symbol for the sun-wheel. The symbol was adopted and modified by the Nazis, not invented by them.
I am convinced that the backward slide of education exists, especially when I compare my education with that of my sons. You are correct that today’s youth is more adept as using up-to-date-technology than I am but what would they do if it all broke down? If my calculator stopped working, I could revert to my slide-rule and my book of logarithmic tables. Could any of today’s students? This, again, is symbolic of the ‘dumbing-down’ of our children that is already evident in their grammar and spelling deficiencies. It’s so bad that there are now reports of teachers who can’t spell. If that’s change, I certainly fear for our youth.

CJ, it depends who reads Whitaker’s site as to how it is labelled. To a leftist, it is indeed a ‘white supremacist’ site. Although biased towards Whites, to me, it is a site that seeks balance. Over the last few years we have seen the rise of ‘reverse-racism’, where instead of some sort of reconciliation, the non-white races want to take it to the opposite extreme where the Whites will be at the bottom. This is evident in ‘affirmative action’, ‘Black Pride’ movements etc. The way I read Whitaker’s site was that he was trying to point out how discriminatory some institutions now were against Whites and, hopefully, equalise the playing field.
I’m not dismissing what was done in the past but turning the tables completely will just open another ‘can of worms’.
I hadn’t mentioned his website, only his book which does not use race or ‘White supremacy’ at all but does criticise leftist and Politically Correct policies.

I’ve had a hard enough time with the new acronyms so what’s a ‘sock puppet’? Not another text message? :-^

OK Sven, I’m glad you’re not a hippy. I liked your ‘LOLSTIKA’ link. Did you do that yourself? I thought the music was a bit weak though.
I’ve tried Googling (a new tech word) LOLDONGS and LULZCOW but arrive at some weird websites. Can’t you put me out of my misery? Do you know their meanings?
Also, your link, http://www.natall.com/adv/2004/07-03-04.html, was very good and, if read with an open mind, is supportive to my views.

It's all well and good to describe it as 'dumbing down' but that doesn't take into account that the youth are far more proficient with new technologies than those who came before them.

Everyone likes to speak about the dumbing down in education, and to an extent I agree with some of the concern regarding literacy especially.

What bothers me, is those who are denigrating educational standards don't take into account the many new disciplines being learned - be they technological or advances in the sciences. You speak of logarithmic tables, but look in any year 12 extension mathematics class, and you will find that thanks to the use of programmable calculators, they are tackling mathematics that is far more complex than it was many years ago.

You acknowledge the youth are more skilled in using technology, yet you give them no credit for it whatsoever - it is this use of technology that is going to be far more useful than slide rules.

It's well and good to say if their computers failed they'd be in trouble. To that I'd say, the older generation would be in trouble if they were put in a computer lab and told to get cracking with computer programming or communications.

And this latter scenario is far more practical and far more likely than a sudden need requirement to go back to slide rules.

Educational standards are indeed changing - but it's not all backward. It just seems that way to those who aren't making the same adaptations.

TurnRightTurnLeft, I note that you are concerned with the decline of literacy (from whence this thread evolved), but proficiency with new technology is not the same as understanding the guts and bones of it.

While many new disciplines are being learned, a lot are next to useless. A local school has lately become specialised in ‘the performing arts’. That’ll look good on someone’s resume when applying for a technical position somewhere. I can’t vouch for year 12 maths as I left school at 16 but, by then, we were performing differential calculus and learning to apply it to physics. Again the maths that today’s youth is tackling is, by your own admission, made possible by the use of programmable calculators. Seems to me they are more operators than mathematicians if they are just plugging figures etc into their hand-held computers.

I’m sure that if the younger generation were put in a computer lab and told to get cracking with computer programming, the majority would be struggling as most are skilled as operators, not programmers. I’ve seen it as ex-computer gamers were able to grasp radar operation quickly but had a hard time with the theory.

As for a sudden requirement to go back to older ways, many so-called ‘doomsday scenarios’ have loss of power as a factor. It would be crazy to think that could never happen. We should prepare for every plausible scenario.

BTW, I don’t fear change – I have been through two major career changes and kept up each time. So I don’t fit your accusation of paranoia and fear of change, do I?

And you still haven’t clarified your link between swastika and paranoia.

JackTheLad

"Again the maths that today’s youth is tackling is, by your own admission, made possible by the use of programmable calculators. Seems to me they are more operators than mathematicians if they are just plugging figures etc into their hand-held computers."

Certainly the maths I remember doing never even required techniques that the students were presumed to know, such as long division and multiplication, because prowess in arithmetic wasn't the point. This makes me sceptical of the idea that modern calculators are allowing students to do more complex maths.

Sylvia.

Oh I get it, if you're not a sock or a white supremacist, you're just a coot.

God help us from performing arts students eh? I can just imagine it now, the power goes out, all hell breaks loose and Jack yells out to the missus "fetch me my pencil and slide rule, the computers are out and I want to teach those teenagers some mathematical and grammatical skills before civilisation collapses."

The swastika is most commonly associated with nazi ideology.
Your belief that the academic establishment is some kind of force aimed at bringing down the west was being likened to the nazi pattern of demonising jews as a force striving to bring down the german establishment. This belief is paranoid.

In relation to the calculators, it is far more than just tapping things into them.
First the students must program the calculators to perform the task they wish. They must work out these formulae, and adapt them to various situations. It allows them to perform far more complex calculations in a field such as triggonometry, than would have been possible in the past. Rather tha laboriously performing the same tasks over and over by rote, the calculator allows them to proceed on to more difficult tasks.
Calculators can't think. They're a tool.

I'll concede that more students are proficient at the use of software than programming it.
That being said, even the programming skills are more advanced among the younger generation.

Plus, most are more adept at using communications technologies.

As far as your doomsday scenario goes, the point I made was:

Which scenario is more likely for today's student:

1) A doomsday scenario, requiring a slide rule.
2) A situation where they are required to interface/program/communicate with software.

I'm going to say, option 2).

Sylvia, you are spot-on about the maths having little to do with arithmetical functions. Calculus, trigonometry and algebra are more an application of rules and working through problems than arithmetic. In ‘ye olden days’, logarithmic and exponential functions were worked out on paper. New technology speeds up these functions by taking out the hard slog. All that means is that more can be done in less time, but of the same complexity.

Bugsy, I think that you’ve lost it. Instead of explaining the meanings of your acronyms (maybe you used them but don’t know what they mean either), you call me a water bird (unless you have a secret meaning for coot).
From your rabid defence of the back-slide I can only surmise that you are either a ‘modern’school teacher or a ‘modern’ school teacher’s victim who has had his head filled with meaningless drivel as a substitute for good learning.
Quothe Bugsy, ‘Umm, er, me can’t use a slide rule or speek an spel properly but I is a gooder purformur at the arts than youse’.
What a wasted education.
BTW, what will you do if the ‘power goes out’? Your ‘magic boxes’ will be no use. You could always perform a dance.

TurnRightTurnLeft, by your logic, you could easily substitute the hammer and sickle for the swastika as communists are also ‘paranoid’ and also find groups to demonise (class war), not to mention the countless millions murdered by Lenin and Stalin (and Mao).

I have already agreed that the calculator is labour-saving, allowing more work on problems to be carried out. That’s all. More complex problems are still only solvable by those most adept at pure mathematics.

What do you mean by being more adept at using ‘communication technologies’? Not texting, I hope.

Your choice of the scenarios is fine and well – as long as the power stays on.

"TurnRightTurnLeft, by your logic, you could easily substitute the hammer and sickle for the swastika as communists are also ‘paranoid’ and also find groups to demonise (class war), not to mention the countless millions murdered by Lenin and Stalin (and Mao)."

Yep. I don't see how that changes anything. Bugsy used the term to make a point about your post. I really don't see what you're getting at by saying other terms could be used as well.

And make no mistake - the belief that a majority of academics are trying to bring down the west is indeed paranoid. In saying they're 'trying to' you declare that bringing down the west is indeed their motivation, which is profoundly foolish. While I suppose I could understand someone believing they are unintentionally contributing to the west's downfall (even though I disagree), pretending this is their motivation requires thousands of univerity academics, who all go home to their wives and families, to actively want to destroy the western way of life they enjoy.
Believing in a conspiracy of this magnitude is paranoid, and manifestly foolish. I've heard these views before, and they're invariably expressed by those who have grown so cynical they are out of touch with the community they feel the need to comment upon.

In relation to the power staying on - I imagine that will be of more relevance to electricians than IT specialists. It's still far more likely that students will need to use computers.

Communications technology extends well beyond texting.

MSN, Skype, forums/blogs, email attachments, bit torrents, webcam conferencing, social networking sites and blackberries, to name but a few.

"Explain your acronyms right now young man!"

Ah, Jack, I hope you are not a betting man, because today you are right off the money. In fact so far away from anything remotely resembling myself, my education or political leanings that I would have thought you were talking to someone else. Although by your admission of leaving school when you were 16, does seem that you have a resentment towards people who inhabit institutions like universities, even though you have probably never even set foot in one. Oh, and get a better dictionary, I think the one you are using is rather limited (or you could use "teh googles").

You my friend are a lollersaurus.

Nice one, Bugsy. So you’re not what I postulated. Maybe your background is more like mine but I doubt it. Yes, I left school at 16. Times were hard and my parents couldn’t afford to support me. I made up for it by going to college part-time for five years, mixing with those who you think I resented. Do you think that I would have revealed that I left school at that age if it caused me concern? Au contraire mon Bugsy, I have a high regard for educated people. I acknowledge their intellects but it doesn’t make me feel any different. Going by your post, you were in education beyond my leaving age and regard those who left earlier as inferior. Could you be suffering from ‘educationSTIKA’?
I have also noticed that you ignore statements that you can’t answer and attack all others. I won’t end with a stupid acronym, that’s your forte.
PS what dictionary should I consult for ‘LOLDONGS’ and ‘LULZCOW’? The Encyclopedia Cretinous?

TurnRightTurnLeft, I only mentioned the swastika/hammer and sickle connection as most people jump on Nazis while ignoring or apologising for Communism. Bugsy’s analogy was typical. A balanced view shows the faults of both systems.
But, seriously, you hit on a very valid point when you wrote ‘. In saying they're 'trying to' you declare that bringing down the west is indeed their motivation, which is profoundly foolish’ and ‘I could understand someone believing they are unintentionally contributing to the west's downfall’. I stand corrected. What I should have elaborated on was that the original professors in the 50’s and early 60’s were consciously promoting the views that led to political correctness and dumbing down of our young. Those educators and professors that were, in turn, taught by the original lecturers probably believed in what they were passing on to the next generation of students.

As for your statement on belief in a conspiracy, life’s experience influences one’s opinions. One man’s cynic is another’s realist. Again I state that computers are no use without power. And don’t mention batteries – they have to be recharged.

Your allusion to comms technology was fine until you mentioned blackberries. I would have added them to my vodka.

I dunno whether they still work if they were immersed in vodka

;)

http://www.cnet.com.au/mobilephones/pdaphones/0,239036203,240060486,00.htm

Ah Jack, you old water bird, I bet its confusing in your own head. Forgive for my misinterpretations, but when you say you "have a high regard for educated people", what do you mean exactly? I only ask because statements like:

"Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks",

These statements seem to show a very low regard for educated people.

As to your concern about declining education standards (comparing your sons education to yours), well the Australian Bureau of Statistics did a survey in 1998 on literacy standards and guess what they found? People in the 15-45 age bracket did better than those older that that. And they declined markedly with age over 45.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbytitle/DF92DC0FEBC80747CA2570FF007ABE0B?OpenDocument
It is quite likely that there a many reasons for this, discussed by the ABS, however one thing that they do not see is a decline in literacy over time, nor is there anywhere any mention on a decline in educational standards. This is a fiction written by a white supremacist (ie Robert Whitaker) and so readily taken on board by yourself, probably because (by your own admission) many of his views are in line with yours.

If you think that your boys educational standard is not on a par with yours, perhaps they just aren't that bright?

TurnRightThenLeft, checked out your link. So it’s like a PDA. It makes for a very expensive cocktail so I’ll go for tomato juice and a celery stick.

Bugsy, not all educated people are teachers and lecturers. Included are doctors, lawyers, mathematicians (who can function without calculators) and the list goes on. You may also notice that I revised my original statement as it was the professors and teachers of the 50’s and 60’s that produced today’s academics. So the blame lies with the original lecturers.
Statistical surveys can be inaccurate unless a truly diverse portion of the population is polled.
I witnessed the ‘educational’ material that my sons received as they would bring home some for homework so I was able to compare with my own experience where, leaving at 16, I had been roughly at the same level as they were when at ‘Year 12’.
As for your insult to my their intelligence, the older son has a good career in avionics and is attending university part-time so, if he isn’t ‘that bright’, the uni entrance requirements must be low.
The younger son has a good job but, at the moment, enjoys football, cricket, girls, mates, cars and more. If only he was as bright as you, he could give all that up and go to uni to be like you. Or maybe he just made his own choice. I suppose you, with you 'superior' education, will look down on that.
Now I've answered your post, how about recommending the dictionary with all the 'LOL' words that you claim exists?

So, let me get this straight, the only professions you think are worthy of respect are technical or scientific or law. Heaven help anyone who is actually involved in education! Or Arts generally, as it seems anyone who actually contributes to culture can't think properly apparently or they would all be doctors. And so now it's the people who taught you and your generation to blame is it? Give me a break!

And now I'd like to just get what you are talking about straight here, you are basing your whole argument on an opinion formulated looking at some homework and remembering your own adolescence (how many years ago?) and thought that it was at a similar level. This observation of course means that educational and literacy levels are falling, despite ABS reports that show that they are not. Of course statistical reports are summarily dismissed when they don't agree with you. If they have used biased methodology or not a broad enough spectrum of the population, then please point to it, but of course that would mean actually having to read something that is not written by either an embittered racist "former academic" that started but never completed his PhD (because the topic was not popular!) or an ultra-right wing nutbag Christian. How Robert Whitaker could call himself a former "professor" without actually having completed his PhD is beyond me.

Clearly a part-time college education was not wasted on you. "Johnny can't think" indeed, you do know what another nickname for Johnny is don't you, Jack?

Bugsy, it's fast becoming apparent that your 'educational' level is a pretense. Without actually understanding the content of my posts, you launch into a mouth-frothing diatribe, hurling insults (the last resort of an intellectual cripple). Or could it be that intelligence and education do not have to be mutually compatible
Everyone else on this site can contribute their views sensibly, whether I share them or not. You, on the other hand, are acting like a spoiled kid, hurling the 'racist' tag at an authour just because 'Bugsy doesn't agree with him'.
If that's an indication of your 'superior education', I don't think that I've missed out on anything.
Now, before you light your fuse and blow off into another tantrum, take a deep breath, count to ten, then go for it.

Now we are getting somewhere Jack. I notice no new 'evidence' or even really a denial of the presented evidence that your argument of declining educational standards is a farce. Instead, merely a critique of the manner in which I express myself. Well done.

I understand the content of your posts just fine. I called your favourite author a racist, because that is what he is, not merely because I don't agree with him. Take a look at his own website blogs, that guy has a lot of chips on his shoulders, and you have stated your support for his views.

And seriously, your inferiority complex about tertiary education and educators is showing very strongly, what happened to you in school? Did a schoolteacher or lecturer humiliate you or something?
Your assumptions on my 'superior education' may have had some effect if they weren't so off the mark. You can give up that game, you're no good at it.

Why don't you go and visit a library and read something USEFUL for a change, or are librarians part of the leftist conspiracy as well?

Jack The Lud: "What I should have elaborated on was that the original professors in the 50’s and early 60’s were consciously promoting the views that led to political correctness and dumbing down of our young. Those educators and professors that were, in turn, taught by the original lecturers probably believed in what they were passing on to the next generation of students."

Yes you should have. That's quite a different claim to "Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west."

Just how was "promoting the views that led to political correctness" the equivalent of being someone "whose purpose is to bring down the west"?

Hey, even David Duke loves "Coach Bob".
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=whitaker&submit=go

If you don't know who David Duke is, he is one of America's best known racists and former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

But, Jack, you can go right ahead and say that these idiots are saying something important and not racist at all, I'll believe you, truly I will.

LOLDONGS

Actually, CJ, it isn’t a different claim, merely a clarification for those who misunderstood. ie ‘Those educators and professors that were, in turn, taught by the original lecturers’ = ‘Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors’. A handy wee equation to remember.
What’s a ‘Lud”? Is it another obscure acronym or a mistype? I hope you’re not going down to Bugsy’s level.
Political correctness is another name for Intellectual Marxism. Marxism is anti-west.
http://www.students.org.au/political/correctness/

Bugsy, Bugsy, Bugsy, correct me if I’m wrong but I wasn’t promoting David Duke. All I did was mention Whitaker’s book and (evil old me) state that I agreed with it.

You seem to think that preferring to spend your time with your own people and wanting equal treatment for all is 'racism'. The logic of the Left.

While you wrote, ‘I do not yell "fascist" or "Nazi" at all’, you yell ‘racist’ at an author who you claim, in your own mind, to be my ‘favourite author’. I don’t think you have read his book. Don’t be afraid, you might learn something.

I criticised your manner of expression as it is a bit childish and doesn’t directly address the topic but rather shouts out little retorts. As for chips on shoulders, you would appear to have a whole fish supper.

As for my ‘assumptions’ about you, your last few posts have crystallised that for me.

I don’t mind librarians at all – in fact I once knew a female one and she went off like a fire-cracker. That speaks volumes.

In the meantime, unless you start posting sensibly, I will turn my back on you as there are other threads to visit, especially as the other sensible posters have abandoned this one. So you can have the last word, if that makes you happy.

Yes, it makes me very happy. Next time you try to say something stupid, just think twice about what you are saying.

Cheers, and LOGDONGS mate.

>>In the TV show, Ghost Whisperer, we're now seeing an extension from the use of "I" as an indirect object pronoun to its use as a direct object pronoun.

That's a bit problematic to start with, as "I" is always a subject pronoun, never direct or indirect object (that's "me").

>>I can't remember exactly what the show's character, Melanie, said, but it was something like "Do you want Jim and I to do it?"

This appears to have started in the USA. I first became aware of it years ago in the expression "between you and I" but it's spreading, both geographically, beyond the USA, and into other parts of the language.

Yes, that's not correct in the strict grammatical sense as we should have "me" as an object pronoun; but note that both expressions have "and" -two nouns coordinated, not just one pronoun.

>>I have yet to hear anyone say something like "Do you want I to do it?", any more than we hear people say "Did you give it to I?" I suspect that what we're really seeing is a move towards using subject form pronouns in object positions only when linked by conjunctions, or perhaps only with the conjunction "and".

Yes, good observation.

>>Add to that the use of object form pronouns in subject positions, "Me and Fred went to the shops" - which is similar to something I heard Delta Goodrem say in an interview - and it's becoming a total mess. Again, I haven't heard anyone say something like "Me went to the shops".

Yes, but here I don't think that "me" is to be taken as an object pronoun, rather as an emphatic pronoun (a bit like "moi" in French); it's colloquial, but people have been saying that in spoken language for ages. Typically, their mothers correct them and model what the Queen says ("my husband and I...").

continued...

...continued

>>So here's my hypothesis as to what the grammatical rule is becoming:

>>a) In the subject position, the subject form pronoun is used unless the pronoun is linked by a conjunction, in which case the object form pronoun is used.

I'd say the emphatic form of the pronoun is used (instead of the object form) in spoken colloquial English typically in conjunction (but you could also hear "Me, I went to the movies last night")

>>b) In the object and indirect object position, the object form pronoun is used unless the pronoun is linked by a conjunction, in which case the subject form pronoun is used.

Doesn't sound like a consistent rule! Here I think that people say e.g. "Do you want Jim and I to do it" because they are hypercorrecting themselves. Think of my example of mothers correcting children and using the very upper class form when using the pronoun in a subject position. In order to sound more 'correct' speakers may generalise (wrongly) the use of "I" to a number of constructions that remind them of "My husband and I...", i.e. conjunctions. The sociolinguist William Labov has studied language variation and found that hypercorrection did play a part in language change (e.g. lower middle class speakers using a feature they know upper middle class speakers use, and ending up using it more often!). I'm not sure that in this case the practice will spread much further, but it's an interesting example of the principle!

>>Future grammarians are going to have a field day with that.

I think this may have been noticed by linguists before, but maybe not publicised.