* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 18.2287

Tue Jul 31 2007

Qs: Me and John Can Do It

Editor for this issue: Dan Parker <danlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Lee Hartman, Me and John Can Do It


Message 1: Me and John Can Do It
Date: 31-Jul-2007
From: Lee Hartman <lhartmansiu.edu>
Subject: Me and John Can Do It
E-mail this message to a friend

In some ''nonstandard'' varieties of spoken English -- in both the U.S. and
the U.K. -- sentences like (1) are normal, while (2) is not used.

(1) Me and John can do it.
(2) *John and I can do it.

Meanwhile, for a singular subject, the same speakers of (1) would never say
(3), but rather, like ''standard'' speakers, would say (4).

(3) *Me can do it.
(4) I can do it.

I saw a journal article on this phenomenon, probably in the 1970s or early
'80s. I wonder if anyone on the List can help me find the article.

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.