ばか！バカ！　馬鹿ー月！

Just to raise this up because it has been bugging me for a long time. What's the matter with the usage of "Me and someone"? It's obvious the correct form is "Someone and I". Probably some translators think this form is informal and cute, but it annoys me a lot as a reader. If there aren't any compelling reasons to do so, why bother?

Well, I have no idea, all what I can say is that you should always put the "I" at the end (Someone and I), to be more polite and that "Someone and me" is grammatically wrong, though common...
I guess that when a person hears "Me and Bestnumber are going to the banning thread", he thinks this is either a child or an uneducated person speaking, doesn't he?

pudding321 wrote:Just to raise this up because it has been bugging me for a long time. What's the matter with the usage of "Me and someone"? It's obvious the correct form is "Someone and I". Probably some translators think this form is informal and cute, but it annoys me a lot as a reader. If there aren't any compelling reasons to do so, why bother?

I think what happens is that the translator's normal speech patterns are making their way into the text. If you say "Don went to the beach with me... and Becky," it provides the speaker with kind of an "out" while talking. Then the speaker applies the logic that if he can use that combination at the end of that kind of sentence, it should be OK to use it at the beginning of the sentence. It's still wrong though.

Updated the fifth rule regarding the use of who and which. It kind of seems clumsy to me now. Please tell me should you have problems understanding it.

Update with two new entries...

I do have to wonder why people think the apostrophe signifies a plural when it doesn't...

I'm seeing this happen more and more frequently now.

Rava wrote:I do have to wonder why people think the apostrophe signifies a plural when it doesn't...

I'm seeing this happen more and more frequently now.

Hmm. Do you mean the apostrophe used after a place, name, or person when it indicates possessive?

Eg. Mark's iphone
Mcdonald's oily food

pudding321 wrote:

Rava wrote:I do have to wonder why people think the apostrophe signifies a plural when it doesn't...

I'm seeing this happen more and more frequently now.

Hmm. Do you mean the apostrophe used after a place, name, or person when it indicates possessive?

Eg. Mark's iphone
Mcdonald's oily food

No.

I mean people clearly mean plural, but use the possessive inappropriately.

For example, "Player's are stupid."

Possessive isn't equal to plural.

Singular possessive is like this : Baka-Tsuki's forum.
Plural and words ending with an s are like this : Players' minds.

In short, no possessive before an adjective or a verb, only before a noun.

Actually I've never seen such a strange mistake, so I asked him for clarification.

Me neither, I didn't think it was possible (one more character to add).

Mhhh, actually, you may refer also to shops, restaurants, churches and colleges, etc., using the name or job title of the owner....
So you may say, for example :
"The dentist's are all alongside this street".
But you aren't meaning the "dentists" but the "dentist's offices", I guess...
(But it may still be wrong, I'm not sure, but shouldn't it actually be like "the dentists' offices", since if there is more than one office, there should also be more than one dentist, shouldn't it?)


Anyway, there are also lots of exception with that possessive form :
-every singular noun should take an ['s], like "the doctor's car", so it means that you have to say "Jesus’s words", but you will say "Hercules' labours" because it ends with with an "eez" sound... !!! Same for Ramses or Socrates.
- there is also a special case with the singular proper nouns that are formed from a plural word like "United Nations" which will just take a [']... But if there exists an abbreviation, like GM for General Motors, then it will be "General Motors' bill" but "GM's logo" !!!
-you can't use it with any possessive pronoun (yours, its, hers, etc.)
-you say the "do's, don'ts" but the "ifs, ands, buts" when you're meaning the plurals of those words.

Moreover the ['s] and the ['] are also used to form genitives... Like in "Ladies' lingerie" or in "bikers’ union" or in "children's dreams", ...
The fact is that in certain of those cases you may then use it without the primary noun, like I said upper for "doctor's". ^^

Wikipedia has a nice article : possessive apostrophe...
It's even more complicated as what I thought.

Lery wrote:Mhhh, actually, you may refer also to shops, restaurants, churches and colleges, etc., using the name or job title of the owner....
So you may say, for example :
"The dentist's are all alongside this street".
But you aren't meaning the "dentists" but the "dentist's offices", I guess...
(But it may still be wrong, I'm not sure, but shouldn't it actually be like "the dentists' offices", since if there is more than one office, there should also be more than one dentist, shouldn't it?)
[...]

I'm not trying to pick on you, but this sample reflects the exact error I was talking about.

You know "The dentist's are all alongside this street" is wrong because "are" (and all) does not agree with "dentist's" there. Someone listening to that sentence would assume you meant multiple offices of multiple dentists. If someone meant to drop "office" from the sentence and intended it to be singular, it would be "The dentist's is along side this street" instead of what you originally said. However, that's bad English because it's both awkward to say and awkward to listen to.

And if the dentist has multiple offices and you meant it that way, then it's a bad statement no matter what since there's no way to tell what you meant without further clarification.

When I first saw it happen, I attributed it as an ESL-related mistake, but I've seen people on forums who read like native English speakers but make that same error.

Rava wrote: I'm not trying to pick on you, but this sample reflects the exact error I was talking about.

You know "The dentist's are all alongside this street" is wrong because "are" (and all) does not agree with "dentist's" there. Someone listening to that sentence would assume you meant multiple offices of multiple dentists. If someone meant to drop "office" from the sentence and intended it to be singular, it would be "The dentist's is along side this street" instead of what you originally said. However, that's bad English because it's both awkward to say and awkward to listen to.

And if the dentist has multiple offices and you meant it that way, then it's a bad statement no matter what since there's no way to tell what you meant without further clarification.

When I first saw it happen, I attributed it as an ESL-related mistake, but I've seen people on forums who read like native English speakers but make that same error.

It seems to be a confusion between possessive nouns and possessive pronouns.

Possessive nouns, for example: Sarah's, the dentist's, are, in fact, used as adjectives despite the fact that we call them "nouns". (Not to be mixed up with possessive adjectives (her/your), though)

Possessive pronouns, for example: yours, ours, mine, are used directly as nouns.

pudding321 wrote: It seems to be a confusion between possessive nouns and possessive pronouns.

Possessive nouns, for example: Sarah's, the dentist's, are, in fact, used as adjectives despite the fact that we call them "nouns". (Not to be mixed up with possessive adjectives (her/your), though)

Possessive pronouns, for example: yours, ours, mine, are used directly as nouns.

That one is, yes.

I'll have to remember to link to any posts I see this happen to the next time I see it happen. Although now that I'm actively looking for it, watch all occurrences vaporize into thin air.