Editing Talk:1771: It Was I
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) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
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) | ||
− | |||
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. | + | :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) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |