From: m35prod@optonline.net
Date: Sat Feb 25 2006 - 17:02:27 PST
I am sorry, sir, but you are partially incorrect.
The pronoun OBJECT of a preposition is always the OBJECTive case. (me, us, him, her, them) not the subjective case (I, we, he, she, they). In the example cited, the preposition is "to" and the objective case first-person pronoun ("me") is required.
To determine the proper case of a pronoun, (subjective or objective) you can use a quick handy technique.
Remove the "other" noun, and just say the sentence aloud with the "I" or "me."
As follows:
"...that you not refer to "I" as a bonehead." NO. Sounds weird.
"...that you not refer to "me" as a bonehead." YES. Sounds OK.
You are correct that I should have had the good manners to have put my friends first and ME second. But think of it as an officer, leading and protecting his fellow boneheads...er...men, who follow. (Military content)
The period does, indeed, go within the quotes, according to the standard rules. I have always had a problem with that, however. How would you print the following sentence?
Did you say "I hate strawberries?"
(Or) Did you say "I hate strawberries!"?
(Or) Did you say "I hate strawberries!?"
(Or how about) I repeat: Did he ask "Did she tell you that they said 'We hate strawberries!'??."
APB, Grammar Police, (ret)
Nulla Tenaci, Invia Est Via
www.SIBTA.com
----- Original Message -----
> I believe proper grammar would dictate:
From: Glen Closson <glen_closson@earthlink.net>
Date: Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:37 pm
Subject: [MV] Irrelevant postings "Citizens for a CARC-free America"
>
> "I would prefer, in the future, that you not refer to my friends
> and I and
> as "boneheads."
>
> Please note you always put the other party before yourself and the
> periodgoes within the quotes.
>
> Thank you for your compliance
>
> Regards,
>
> Glen, a proud member of "Citizens for a CARC-free America"
>
> Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]
> On Behalf
> Of m35prod@optonline.net
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:27 AM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MV] Irrelevant postings
>
> I would prefer, in the future, that you not refer to me and my
> friends as
> "boneheads".
>
> Thank you for your anticipated compliance, moose-breath.
>
> APB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Albert Lyon <albertandlyon@hotmail.com>
> Date: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:22 pm
> Subject: [MV] Irrelevant postings
>
> > In a message dated 23/02/06 19:01:00 GMT Standard Time,
> > stuinnh@mvnut.us
> > writes:
> >
> > Well, if that's the case, why not talk about cowboy's and Indian
> > dates, the military fought the Indians or how about all
> firearms, or
> > wagons >>
> >
> >
> > And why not talk about "Armed Drones in Iraq".....<<Has anyone
> given
> > any thought to why the military doesn't have armed drones
> passing over
> > the hwy's every few minutes 24/7 >>
> >
> >
> > And why not talk about "Pappy Boyington Still a Black Sheep at
> > UW" ???
> >
> > In fact, why not just make the Mil-Veh Board into a general
> talking
> > shop of current and past events?
> >
> > Here's a simple rule which even some of you boneheads will
> > understand:-
> >
> > Before you post (not after....BEFORE) ask yourself..."What
> direct
> > relevance does my post have to MILITARY VEHICLES???
> >
> > If in doubt...DON'T post. If you really want to circulate this
> > irrelevant trash, start your own "History" list, or your own
> > "Politics" list and send this stuff to those who want it...but
> keep it
> > OFF this list.
> >
> > Albert
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:41:14 PDT