Honestly, the most amazing fact here might be that there are apparently over 200,000 corporate executives in the Anglophone world! (Assuming the WSJ's claim isn't puffery, anyway.)
Wow—I had not heard of this, either! Definitely a long drive endeavor. I thought for sure we’d get more Costco secrets—or was much of it history of the acquisitions?
Personally, I love to guess what brand the Kirkland products actually are. They had a fabulous frozen garlic butter shrimp product (Coastway?) that as soon as I tumbled to it seemed to become a Kirkland thing. Not 1000% identical but almost. I’d love to know if there is a required % alteration of products or just the repackaging.
As to “David and I”—so many people say this! I’m sure it will slip into standard English before long and we will be the few cranky writers and editors bemoaning the grammar of the vox populi. Or maybe that’s now…
There's a *lot* about Kirkland Signature in the Costco episode. It's a true proprietary brand, not a relabel or repackaging. For the KS mixed nuts, for example, Costco works directly with farmers.
Good to know! I’ll check it out. It explains why I preferred the original garlic shrimp product and was sure it had changed. Often, the Kirkland brand is as good or higher than similar brands.
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.
Honestly, the most amazing fact here might be that there are apparently over 200,000 corporate executives in the Anglophone world! (Assuming the WSJ's claim isn't puffery, anyway.)
I think some big companies have 200 VPs.
Recently discovered this podcast. Fact-packed.
Wow—I had not heard of this, either! Definitely a long drive endeavor. I thought for sure we’d get more Costco secrets—or was much of it history of the acquisitions?
Personally, I love to guess what brand the Kirkland products actually are. They had a fabulous frozen garlic butter shrimp product (Coastway?) that as soon as I tumbled to it seemed to become a Kirkland thing. Not 1000% identical but almost. I’d love to know if there is a required % alteration of products or just the repackaging.
As to “David and I”—so many people say this! I’m sure it will slip into standard English before long and we will be the few cranky writers and editors bemoaning the grammar of the vox populi. Or maybe that’s now…
There's a *lot* about Kirkland Signature in the Costco episode. It's a true proprietary brand, not a relabel or repackaging. For the KS mixed nuts, for example, Costco works directly with farmers.
Good to know! I’ll check it out. It explains why I preferred the original garlic shrimp product and was sure it had changed. Often, the Kirkland brand is as good or higher than similar brands.
Ooh can't wait to listen to the FtX episode with Sam Bankman-Fried from 2021. Before he was a convicted felon.
Hahaha indeed!
I remember when it was the Price Club. We had them in Northern California, too.
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!
>I’d never heard of a podcast episode that exceeded an hour
It seems that you've not been a listener of Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" podcast:
https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
Correct: I had not heard of it. Thanks for the link!