Talk:1771: It Was I - Revision history

141.101.96.154 at 15:07, 9 February 2023

2023-02-09T15:07:44Z

172.68.245.193 at 10:20, 6 October 2019

2019-10-06T10:20:42Z

172.68.245.193 at 10:19, 6 October 2019

2019-10-06T10:19:48Z

172.68.245.193 at 10:18, 6 October 2019

2019-10-06T10:18:58Z

108.162.242.23 at 17:33, 28 March 2019

2019-03-28T17:33:45Z

162.158.92.17 at 18:57, 15 December 2016

2016-12-15T18:57:22Z

Davidy22 at 16:51, 14 December 2016

2016-12-14T16:51:46Z

198.41.238.10: "Luke" was wrong.

2016-12-13T23:33:47Z

"Luke" was wrong.

Jacky720 at 23:16, 13 December 2016

2016-12-13T23:16:04Z

173.245.49.84: its me ur brother

2016-12-13T19:23:34Z

its me ur brother

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 9 February 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:
	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.		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)		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]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 6 October 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:

	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.		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, ~~heregoes~~ my signature: 10:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)	+	Sorry, here goes my signature with an IP: [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.193\|172.68.245.193]] 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 6 October 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:

	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.		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, heregoes my signature: 10:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 6 October 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:
	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)		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.		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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 28 March 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:

	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)		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.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::: 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)
 Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.44|141.101.81.44]] 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 14 December 2016
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 35:		Line 33:

	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 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)

@@ Line 15: / 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)
 ::: 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)
 This probably should have a link to [[890|this comic]]. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.120}}

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 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)
 No mention of Rogue One's release? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.10|162.158.58.10]] 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:23, 13 December 2016
Line 30:		Line 30:

	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)		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)