Editing Talk:1771: It Was I

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
I find it hilarious how much people get hung up on grammar. Language is a beautiful chaos that we partially order, but it is not set in stone. Seasons, years, and people change, as does language. If you understand what they're saying, why do you still point it out? If it's illegible, it's understandable to point it out, but an extra and or the wrong 'there' isn't going to hurt you. Proper grammar is only so important; it is not the end-all be-all of language. Thank you for reading my short rant. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 16:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
"It me" isn't "caveman-speak"... It's a popular Internet meme. See [http://www.papermag.com/it-me-you-and-everyone-we-know-a-look-at-the-webs-most-ambiguous-meme-1427655235.html here] and [http://www.papermag.com/an-interview-with-pastaversaucy-the-inventor-of-the-it-me-meme-1427658503.html here], for starters. --[[User:Esterhazy|Esterhazy]] ([[User talk:Esterhazy|talk]]) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
"It me" isn't "caveman-speak"... It's a popular Internet meme. See [http://www.papermag.com/it-me-you-and-everyone-we-know-a-look-at-the-webs-most-ambiguous-meme-1427655235.html here] and [http://www.papermag.com/an-interview-with-pastaversaucy-the-inventor-of-the-it-me-meme-1427658503.html here], for starters. --[[User:Esterhazy|Esterhazy]] ([[User talk:Esterhazy|talk]]) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  
Line 13: Line 15:
 
:: Just a note that might be relevant to a more detailed discussion. This wiki does often detail the academic elements of the joke [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
:: Just a note that might be relevant to a more detailed discussion. This wiki does often detail the academic elements of the joke [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
::: Please do document them. But the whole point of the cartoon is in fact to discuss this question, but there isn't really a 'right' or 'wrong' and certainly not one prescribed by style guides. See [[1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police]].--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
::: Please do document them. But the whole point of the cartoon is in fact to discuss this question, but there isn't really a 'right' or 'wrong' and certainly not one prescribed by style guides. See [[1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police]].--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.44|141.101.81.44]] 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
:::: Modern English doesn't really have linking verbs anymore. Linking verbs only really make sense in languages where adjectives agree in case with nouns, like German, Latin, or in Slavic languages, which makes the construction "X is Y" where Y is an adjective really common, and since Y agrees in singular/plural and gender already, it makes sense to apply agreement to case also, and that usage spreads to cases where Y is a noun as well. None of this applies to English: nouns have lost case and gender, adjectives have completely lost agreement and case and gender and plural, pronoun case has become limited to subject vs object-and-everything-else. Other West-European languages that have lost case have followed a similar pathway (ex: French "C'est moi", where "moi" is caseless). In the case of "X is Y", Y is an attribute to the subject, and in linking verb languages this gets nominative case (and likewise, attributes to the object get accusative case). Modern English applies the rule that it's not a subject, so it falls into the object-and-everything-else category.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.91|108.162.219.91]] 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
:::: Modern English doesn't really have linking verbs anymore. Linking verbs only really make sense in languages where adjectives agree in case with nouns, like German, Latin, or in Slavic languages, which makes the construction "X is Y" where Y is an adjective really common, and since Y agrees in singular/plural and gender already, it makes sense to apply agreement to case also, and that usage spreads to cases where Y is a noun as well. None of this applies to English: nouns have lost case and gender, adjectives have completely lost agreement and case and gender and plural, pronoun case has become limited to subject vs object-and-everything-else. Other West-European languages that have lost case have followed a similar pathway (ex: French "C'est moi", where "moi" is caseless). In the case of "X is Y", Y is an attribute to the subject, and in linking verb languages this gets nominative case (and likewise, attributes to the object get accusative case). Modern English applies the rule that it's not a subject, so it falls into the object-and-everything-else category.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.91|108.162.219.91]] 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:Correct; "Luke" was wrong. And if the point - wrongly - is that there is no right or wrong then Luke was wrong in saying anything at all, because he was thus opposing something that wasn't wrong, and he was wrong to defend his point. "Vader" was right. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.10|198.41.238.10]] 23:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
:: No, a) English doesn't use that kind of grammar anymore. And b) "is" has multiple meaning. If you are to use double nominative, you should only do it when stating a link where the order is irrelevant "It was I" <-> I was it/the one", but if you are doing that you are also invoking an achaic grammar structure where you can say things like "So say I". "You hate I" and "Me loves She". While not technically incorrect, you should leave it to old sayings. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.17|162.158.92.17]] 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 
 
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.44|141.101.81.44]] 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
  
 
This probably should have a link to [[890|this comic]]. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.120}}
 
This probably should have a link to [[890|this comic]]. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.120}}
 
: There already is one! Look closely at the penultimate paragraph --[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
: There already is one! Look closely at the penultimate paragraph --[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:You know, I think there should be a Category:Pedantics. Eh? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 23:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
  
 
No mention of Rogue One's release? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.10|162.158.58.10]] 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
No mention of Rogue One's release? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.10|162.158.58.10]] 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Line 27: Line 25:
  
 
What does "It me" even mean? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.98|108.162.219.98]] 01:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
What does "It me" even mean? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.98|108.162.219.98]] 01:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:It means "it is me" or "it was me" dependent on the context. [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
+
:It means "it is me" or "it was me" dependent on the context.
  
 
Is it just ''I'' (me), or does the punchline have another meaning? Namely: "''Eat'' me, I allowed it"? Or "''Eat'' me, I am your father"? A little basic and gross, but hey... [[User:5h4n6|5h4n6]] ([[User talk:5h4n6|talk]]) 02:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
Is it just ''I'' (me), or does the punchline have another meaning? Namely: "''Eat'' me, I allowed it"? Or "''Eat'' me, I am your father"? A little basic and gross, but hey... [[User:5h4n6|5h4n6]] ([[User talk:5h4n6|talk]]) 02:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
Had Emperor Palpatine followed a style guide he would have said simply "I allowed the alliance to know [...]" rather than use the highly deprecated passive voice, and by using the active voice rather than passive he would have avoided he whole fiasco.  Of course some would urge avoiding the verb "to be" entirely; any English sentence using "to be" as the verb can be formulated using a better verb. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.89|173.245.52.89]] 11:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
 
I think the title text refers to the meme "its me ur brother." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.84|173.245.49.84]] 19:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 
 
I find it hilarious how much people get hung up on grammar. Language is a beautiful chaos that we partially order, but it is not set in stone. Seasons, years, and people change, as does language. If you understand what they're saying, why do you still point it out? If it's illegible, it's understandable to point it out, but an extra and or the wrong 'there' isn't going to hurt you. Proper grammar is only so important; it is not the end-all be-all of language. Thank you for reading my short rant. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 16:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 
It me. I made it.
 
 
 
While in synthetic languages like Russian "it me" will be completely normal form of omitting the "was" part, in analythical languages like English it still looks weird and useful only as a meme.
 
Sorry, here goes my signature with an IP: [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.193|172.68.245.193]] 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
It was I, DIO![[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.154|141.101.96.154]]
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: