Steven Pinker addresses the "David and I" phenomenon in The Language Instinct. Here's an abridged version of what he says:
The mavens’ case about case rests on one assumption: if an entire conjunction phrase has a grammatical feature like subject case, every word inside that phrase has to have that grammatical feature, too. But that is ju…
Steven Pinker addresses the "David and I" phenomenon in The Language Instinct. Here's an abridged version of what he says:
The mavens’ case about case rests on one assumption: if an entire conjunction phrase has a grammatical feature like subject case, every word inside that phrase has to have that grammatical feature, too. But that is just false.
Jennifer is singular; you say Jennifer is, not Jennifer are. The pronoun She is singular; you say She is, not She are. But the conjunction She and Jennifer is not singular, it’s plural; you say She and Jennifer are, not She and Jennifer is. So if a conjunction can have a different grammatical number from the pronouns inside it (She and Jennifer are), why must it have the same grammatical case as the pronouns inside it (Give Al Gore and I a chance [a statement made by Bill Clinton during an election campaign])? The answer is that it need not. A conjunction is an example of a “headless” construction.
A conjunction ... is not the same as any of its parts. If John and Marsha met, it does not mean that John met and that Marsha met. If voters give Clinton and Gore a chance, they are not giving Gore his own chance, added on to the chance they are giving Clinton; they are giving the entire ticket a chance. So just because Me and Jennifer is a subject that requires subject case, it does not mean that Me is a subject that requires subject case, and just because Al Gore and I is an object that requires object case, it does not mean that I is an object that requires object case. On grammatical grounds, the pronoun is free to have any case it wants.
Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (Penguin Science) (p. 405). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
Steven Pinker addresses the "David and I" phenomenon in The Language Instinct. Here's an abridged version of what he says:
The mavens’ case about case rests on one assumption: if an entire conjunction phrase has a grammatical feature like subject case, every word inside that phrase has to have that grammatical feature, too. But that is just false.
Jennifer is singular; you say Jennifer is, not Jennifer are. The pronoun She is singular; you say She is, not She are. But the conjunction She and Jennifer is not singular, it’s plural; you say She and Jennifer are, not She and Jennifer is. So if a conjunction can have a different grammatical number from the pronouns inside it (She and Jennifer are), why must it have the same grammatical case as the pronouns inside it (Give Al Gore and I a chance [a statement made by Bill Clinton during an election campaign])? The answer is that it need not. A conjunction is an example of a “headless” construction.
A conjunction ... is not the same as any of its parts. If John and Marsha met, it does not mean that John met and that Marsha met. If voters give Clinton and Gore a chance, they are not giving Gore his own chance, added on to the chance they are giving Clinton; they are giving the entire ticket a chance. So just because Me and Jennifer is a subject that requires subject case, it does not mean that Me is a subject that requires subject case, and just because Al Gore and I is an object that requires object case, it does not mean that I is an object that requires object case. On grammatical grounds, the pronoun is free to have any case it wants.
Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (Penguin Science) (p. 405). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
Thanks, I hate it
I understand!