Discussing grammar with my friend and me [not I]

72
13
Joined Jul 5, 2010
Quote:
BTW, props for using affects correctly.

Grammer aside, I just can't keep up with today's abbreviations and meanings.

This one has been turning up a lot, later. Please: What is, or are, props in this usage?
I don't really feel as though I should be posting in this thread, even though I do think grammar is important.  I struggle with sentence structure and punctuation incessantly, and I am sure that I use commas way too frequently, but I can't seem to avoid it [chagrin]

Anyway, I didn't see a response to this question, and I think I know, but I am not absolutely certain that I haven't always put more meaning into it than there really is.  As I have always understood it, the use of "props" in this fashion is a slang expansion on the connotations of the original meaning.  Like the original meaning of the word, it still means 'material things', and one could go so far as to include the connotation of 'for theatrical purposes', but the 'theatrical purposes' part of the meaning is understood as to apply to all material things by its more generalized usage.  So it trivializes the importance of materialism as a lifestyle philosophy by referring to all things of material value as mere theatrical devices, but it also acknowledges the significance of the gratification and reward system by being used in a positive sense.  The slang word has taken on even more meaning by becoming more generalized, simply being used to denote a positive recognition.  Now one can simply toss some respect at someone and acknowledge them by saying: "Props."  It is no longer necessary to actually give someone any 'thing' other than the word as a proper reward that has intrinsic value.

Or, I could be way off-base, and it's just a shortened version of the word "proper" morphed into a noun.  In which case, I would not have properly understood the meaning, and I'd get no props.
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
In that sentence, if anything were needed after .....with my friend (and, you're correct, there isn't) I would have said "myself," rather than either of the others. Some possibilities for tha phrase:

Discussing grammer with my friend......

My friend and I were discussing grammer, and.....

Me and my friend were discussing grammer, and....

But the fact is, friends don't let friends discuss grammer. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/thumb.gif
 
477
35
Joined Aug 6, 2010
Modern English and German syntax and grammar are quite different with parts of speech appearing in completely different order. 
While there are some noticeable differences, I'm not sure I would say that German and English syntax is completely different. They are certainly more similar than English and French.
 
 
6,367
128
Joined Feb 1, 2007
And, in fact, English is classified as a teutonic language, not a Latin one.

However, the language the is most similar to English syntax is Swedish. That's why many Swedes were able to learn it quickly when it became an official second language: They just read the subheads while watching TV, and had no problems with syntax. None of that pen of my aunt crap that gives us trouble with, say, French.

On the other hand, if you think you're good with languages, try learning Hungarian as an adult.
 
929
18
Joined Jul 28, 2006
In that sentence, if anything were needed after .....with my friend (and, you're correct, there isn't) I would have said "myself," rather than either of the others. Some possibilities for tha phrase:
As the object pronoun, "me" was used correctly in this sentence.  The simple way to know when "myself" is incorrect is to divide the sentence in to two separate phrases.  You would say "discussing grammar with my friend".  You would not say "discussing grammar with myself" [unless you were talking to yourself]. 

"Myself" is a reflexive pronoun.  It's correct usage would be to refer back to the subject.  For instance:  "I treated myself to dinner out" ,   or "I cannot imagine myself wearing that dress"

Furthermore,  while many times "Discussing grammar with my friends"  might be sufficient,  it is not always.  In the thread title,  my intention [which I failed to make clear] was to indicate that others besides my friend and me might be included in the discussion.  The greater point which seems to have been missed by most, is that it is not correct to use the pronoun "I" in that sentence. 
 
Last edited:
929
18
Joined Jul 28, 2006
Me and my friend were discussing grammer, and....
 YIKES!  do you really think this is correct? 

 To test this one also,  divide the sentence into two separate ones and see how they fly on their own.   

"My friend was discussing grammar".   is correct. " Me was discussing grammar" ... no so good.   
 
2,260
15
Joined Jun 16, 2007
I was educated here:



I'm the guy who's pointing the paint gun at the other guy. He was calling me names.
 
Last edited:
8,550
210
Joined Feb 13, 2008
"I and my friend were discussing grammar" is correct but inelegant.  Referring to oneself first is not gracious, but it does not break any strict rule of grammar like those concerning agreement of number, voice subject/object and so on.  In the example, "I" is a subject of the participle, "discussing."  "Me," is an objective form and consequently incorrect in any order, unless the participle takes it as an object.

Which authority classifies modern English as a Teutonic language?  Old English, yes.   But that was awhile ago and much the language has changed.  Or, at the end with the verb our sentences are ordered? 

BDL 
 
477
35
Joined Aug 6, 2010
Which authority classifies modern English as a Teutonic language?  Old English, yes.   But that was awhile ago and much the language has changed.  Or, at the end with the verb our sentences are ordered? 
English is a Germanic (or Teutonic if you want to sound archaic) language. Simply because modern vocabulary and word structure has evolved doesn't mean that the language is no longer Germanic. As far as your example, that's not the word order that would be used in German anyway.
 
Top Bottom