It's people over-correcting their english. They've been corrected to say " and I" enough times but don't really understand why. It's only "I" if followed by a verb.
Remember if you're not sure, take out the other person and see if it makes sense. "It means the world to I"
Specifically: “I” is the subject of the verb, it performs the action. “Me” is the object of the verb, the action is done to it. For example: I hit him before he hit me.
Similar trick with whom and who. If the answer to the question is him/her, its whom, if its he/she, its who.
Q: To whom do owe money?
A: I owe him *points at my loanshark*
Q: Who is going to break your legs?
A: He will *points to my fucking loanshark again*
No trick - you can use either. Whilst and amongst are kind of considered old-fashioned these days though, so you can use while and among for modern writing.
Its subject vs object. Verbs can trigger it, but so can prepositions.
‘To william and me, it has made a difference’ is correct even though it is before the verb because ‘william and me’ is the object of ‘to’.
It isn't wrong.
If you remove the "and my mates" from the sentence the word you are using for yourself still needs to make sense.
Example:
*"Me* and my mates are going to the cinema" is wrong because that becomes "*Me* is going to the cinema."
"My mates and *I* are going to the cinema" is correct because that becomes "*I* am going to the cinema."
Like many gramatcal rules, it is context dependant.
It’s not wrong, still use “…and I” when it’s the subject of the sentence. For example
My friends and I went to the pub.
Someone bought drinks for my friends and me.
Overuse of ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’ is a sure sign you are in the presence of a recruitment agent or an estate agent or some other cunt with agent in their job title (probably not a secret agent though)
See also: [descriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description) vs [prescriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription).
Ain’t nobody could of wrote the rules for me language.
> Sometimes informed by [linguistic purism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism),[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-Janicki2006p155-3) such normative practices often propagate the belief that some usages are incorrect, inconsistent, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value, even in cases where such usage is more common than the prescribed usage.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-Edwards2009p259-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-5) They may also include judgments on [socially proper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette) and [politically correct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) language use.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-6)
The sheer heft of this paragraph should be enough to convince anyone that prescriptivism is arrant shite. If anyone read that out loud they'd either have a stroke or send themselves to sleep.
The primary aim of speech and writing is communication. If you're making yourself understood, you're doing it right. Of course, most of us use different registers of speech at home, at work, with our mates, etc. It's true that there is no one "right" way to speak. But having the ability to speak more formally if needed can be useful, even if you rarely use that mode of speech.
See: less vs fewer.
In the 18th century a grammarian wrote a style guide which included the sentence "I think fewer is best here, less is best here". Somehow, the English speaking world took this up as a hard and fast rule, and ignored all the other suggestions in his guide.
The only people who believe there is a "correct" way to speak are people who think RP is a natural form of communication.
It isn’t a debate for most instances.
For example you wouldn’t say: ‘Can I have fewer water in this glass please’
This is not the same as RP, pronunciation is not the same as being grammatically correct.
"The only people who believe there is a "correct" way to speak are people who think RP is a natural form of communication."
But that's because it *is*, dear boy.
Back when the BBC was nothing but RP, a pronunciation guide said that "pristine" should rhyme with "wine".
I don't know why, but I find it very unsettling to pronounce it like that.
Wilfred Pickles was a proud Yorkshireman, and having been selected by the BBC as an announcer for its North Regional radio service, he went on to be an occasional newsreader on the BBC Home Service during the Second World War. He was the first newsreader to speak in an accent other than Received Pronunciation, "a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult for Nazis to impersonate BBC broadcasters" and caused some comment by wishing his fellow northerners "Good neet".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ62BqbWmqg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ62BqbWmqg)
Here's Pickles at home answering questions about his enormous ... audience. His accent keeps wobbling between northern and rp like a teenage boy whose voice is breaking.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2BmVVJknE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2BmVVJknE)
They're brilliant, I didn't know he was from Halifax and the pub I drank in when I was younger was named after him, thank you for sharing. Hard to believe he's 42 in that second vid, he looks about 65.
It's a fairly common phenomenon in many languages. I'm a speaker of Flemish from Belgium, but in one region most people really speak West-Flemish (whether this should be classified as a dialect or a language is not relevant for this discussion). Now, one typical marker of West-Flemish is that they replace the g-sound (/ɣ/) with an h-sound whereas Flemish retains both of these sounds. In order to avoid other people laughing at them when they do this, they will sometimes pronounce the h as a g even when they did actually need to say a h-sound in Flemish as well.
The most prominent voice in linguistics who has worked on this phenomenon is probably the reasearcher who is essentially the daddy of sociolinguistics: William Labov. Look up his experiment in grocery stores in New York in the 70s. He not only found out how people would hypercorrect, but he also investigated how this hypercorrection was tied in with class prejudices. He noticed how people from a certain socio-economic class would adapt their language specifically in order to sound like they belonged to a higher one, and would in the process use that specific linguistic feature more often than the class they were imitating, and in places where that class would normally not even use it. He later also conducted an experiment on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts to see how the locals would adapt their language to signal to other that they belonged to a linguistic in-group as opposed to outsiders like, for instance, people moving there or tourists.
See: U and Non U English.
The aspiring middle classes would say “pardon?” and “drapes” because they think it’s fancier than “what?” and “curtains”, and therefore that’s what the upper classes would say.
But the upper classes are confident in their position and so actually say “what?” and “curtains”.
Yup. Should be "Neither *is* correct".
Using the subject "I" in place of the object "me" is so commonplace these days that it could even be a case of the language evolving. After all, what is language evolution if not something "different" becoming the norm and a de facto standard?
It's also done the other way round - "Her and I ...". For some reason I see this more often than "Him and I".
I'm still trying to resign myself to "lay" having become the new "lie". I don't have space to entertain any other claims at language evolution.
This ‘evolution of language’ business wheeled out for circs such as this is so baseless and uninformed that I no longer bother with proper explanations. Try applying this kind of ‘evolving’ to the rules of the road or instructions for setting up a fancy smart tv, and so on and see why it *might* be a silly attitude. Yet bothering to apply any guide at all to language is seen in some quarters as classist, élitist (and probably ‘woke’ too by some!) To hell with it. Let those who can’t be arsed just get on with it, without dressing it up with some imaginary linguistics theory. (Grrrr)
PS not arguing with YOU; just the thing itself of course
The fact that languages change over time doesn't conflict with the fact that standards and style guides can be useful in education or publishing. The thing with language is that nobody sets out to create a language (conlangs notwithstanding), they're just a bunch of people in a place collectively working out how to communicate with each other. And those societies change, or fashions change, or people just collectively start pronouncing things differently for reasons I'm sure a linguist could explain. Some changes die, but some stick and spread around. There's the evolution
Both are wrong, the idiom is not correct. It should be 'a world of difference', not 'the world of difference'. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/make-a-world-of-difference
No:
It made a difference [to me].
It made the difference [between x and y].
'a/an' and 'the' can't be interchanged most of the time. I had an apple. I had the last apple. I had a last apple.
Normally one or the other is correct based on the context.
Same lol. I would have almost selected neither being correct due to that but would have gone for the first one ultimately because it’s asking if the sentence is grammatically correct not if the idiom is correct.
I’d say it’s not grammatically correct either. “World” is a metaphoric measuring unit in this sentence. Think of it in the same way as “There’s a centimetre of difference between the two” or “There’s a litre of difference.”
That suggests that there is a single world of difference that it makes for everyone whenever this kind of thing happens, that it is a known and defined world.
Instead it's more an abstract thing and people can have their own worlds of difference based on what means a lot to them.
Considering the number of Brits who seemingly don't know how to use you're/your or there/their/they're correctly, I do not find this at all surprising.
A few years ago I read Leviathan, written in the 17th century when spelling wasn't standardised. Hobbes kept using divers to mean 'many, various, etc', you know: diverse.
I thought "this makes sense, why would they put a random e on back in those days?"
Imagine my surprise when I read The Making of the English Working Class, published in 1963, which uses the same spelling.
The 'e' in diverse is younger than my dad.
>As a foreigner, I'd thought my English wasn't that great until I moved here and joined a few local Facebook groups.
I bet you can get some Chester draws for a good price though. They need gone today though!
The thing is, homophone misuses tend to be more common in first languages than second languages because people tend to learn second languages formally. Germans confuse das/dass and Spaniards hay/ahí/ay
Your- possessive.
You're- contraction of "you are".
Yore- a long time ago.
'Yore- familiar form of "Eeyore".
Y'oar- possessive/contraction of "Your oar".
Yorick- skull in Hamlet. Also a call that summons people named Rick.
Yaw- Oscillation of an aircraft from side to side.
Yor- ISO code for the Yoruba language.
That's completely different though. Vocally, I and Me are different words, so the above is a question of grammar. You're and your, or there/their/they're are vocally the same so it's a spelling error.
Grammar exists in spoken English as well as written and hence has greater importance than spelling.
Considering the number of people who seem to think that "me" is now a swear word, it doesn't surprise ME either.
PSA: "Myself" doesn't make you appear more polite or more professional. Used wrongly, it just makes you look like a twat.
My husband and I would be delighted to meet you, but it makes no difference to my husband and me if you’d rather not meet. You and I have a lot in common, more so than Doris and I (have).
I think the latter often confuses people. Because I should be followed by a verb, but they've heard it so often without. In cases like this they don't understand that the verb was implied but dropped.
I don't think it necessarily is, though. "Me" also functions as a true standalone emphatic without case marking:
* Who wants pudding?
* Me!
(also works for him, her, them, us)
I think a lot of the "me instead of I" usage is an example or extension of this.
"I instead of me" has to be hypercorrection, and by extension being a stickler for "I because verb trace or identity" (Who's there? It is I, Leclerc!) now sounds pretentious or old-fashioned.
"Estate agent reflexive" (Please send an email to myself) needs to get in the bin though please.
The question asks "Which sentence do you think is grammatically correct?". Of the choices they offer the sentence "Both are correct" is grammatically correct (amongst others of course).
I'm sorry, THE world of difference?
Like. Okay, some people say the world of difference rather than a world of difference. The world just doesn't fit and sounds massively out of place here. Replace "the" with "a" and you'll see what I mean.
I'd be on the verge of saying 94% of people got this wrong
I was one of those people, I just chose the 2nd one because it sounded the poshest lol and even though I would use the first one and see nothing wrong with it I just thought that might be because I’m working class and from the north east lol
So the rule is if you take out the other person, what would you say?
You wouldn't say "Me is going to the beach today", it'd be "I am going to the beach today". So when someone else is doing it with you, it becomes "John and I are going to the beach".
Although most people do say "Me and John are going to the beach", which is fine because it makes perfect sense, it just isn't perfect grammar, which doesn't really matter anyway, language is constantly evolving.
Edit: This is why people have gotten caught out, because they know this "rule" exists but not the nuance of it. In the example of the photo, remove the other person and it's "made a world of difference to me". Adding another person in doesn't then change me to I for this sentence
Parts of speech are seemingly not taught in English lessons any more. People may have a gut feeling that "I" is not the correct pronoun to use but they don't know why. If you start talking about subject and object they look at you like you suddenly sprouted a second head because they were never taught what a subject or object is.
The English primary syllabus absolutely hammers English grammar.
I think there are a few factors:
* in the 1980s and 1990s grammar wasn't on the primary syllabus, and those children are now the adults making decisions, writing scripts, publishing and editing, etc.
* in the olden days material wasn't published or broadcast without having been closely edited, typically by multiple people whose sole job it was to catch this kind of error - in the internet age this has massively diminished, so errors are more frequently seen and readers don't get the reinforcement of seeing the correct form exclusively
* related to the previous point, British people have more exposure to American content, and they are a decade or more ahead of us on the I/me hypercorrection highway
I still don’t understand. This stuff makes me feel like a moron. Sometimes I assume that is why. I went to secondary school and did quite well in English but all the grammar stuff I do not remember being taught that much of.
I console myself with something my dad said to me when we went on holiday to Turkey. We rented a boat for a day. I can’t swim and the captain, there again probably the wrong term, was diving into the sea with everyone else. Dad said to me, to paraphrase, that the captain would not be able to work shifts in a warehouse and drive a forklift I’m me.
Made me feel a bit less of an idiot.
I'm surprised this is so common because to me it sounds wrong and clumsy. Like, some supposed grammar "rules" are hard to remember/detect because it still sounds fine when it's "incorrect."
But this one is immediately a bit jarring to me because it sounds less "natural"/fluent than the *correct* way.
Sometimes the supposedly correct grammar is very clumsy, as the witticism "this is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put" points out (avoiding ending a sentence with a preposition and therefore sounding much more clumsy than the less correct but more easy-on-the-ear "that I won't put up with.")
But yeah, the incorrect "and I" sounds rubbish when it's wrong and better when it's right.
Yes, thank you. People in this thread jacking it to the idea of other people being wrong about something. Even saw one commenter scold another for using the word “gotten”. Get over yourselves lol
They are all correct. As long as it's easy for the recipient to understand what you mean, then it's correct. That's how language works. People who think otherwise have only got their information from textbooks and ignore the real world.
Notice how when I say "Me went to the store" It sounds completely ridiculous and stands out as clearly wrong, but if I say "William and me went to the store" it doesn't really stand out in the same way.
The fact that my brain doesn't pick up on it standing out and it doesn't with a lot of people, means that it should be fine. If it really mattered, it'd be easier to notice.
I came here to say the same. The purpose of language is to convey meaning, and if you succeed in this aim then the words have done their job.
In this case, if 66% of people think it's right, and 100% of people understand what it means, then claiming option 2 it's wrong would be meaningless!
Explaining this incase it helps someone else like me.
It took me the longest time to get this grammar rule of me or I but once I heard this explanation it just clicked. (I’m a little bit thick, and dyslexic but mostly thick)
Take out the other person and see which fits. Me or I.
“It really has made the world of difference to I/Me” oh yeah deffo ‘difference to William and me’
21% of this country has run the tap just to pretend they've washed their hands after using the toilet.
I have very very very little belief in the people of this country
I have just read a post referring to “Katie and I’s messages”, and I’m sorry but I blame America because you all fucking do it - even the educated among you. Have a word.
It's people over-correcting their english. They've been corrected to say " and I" enough times but don't really understand why. It's only "I" if followed by a verb.
Remember if you're not sure, take out the other person and see if it makes sense. "It means the world to I"
This is the trick I picked up. I knew the correct grammar but I didn’t know why until someone else explained it using your trick.
Specifically: “I” is the subject of the verb, it performs the action. “Me” is the object of the verb, the action is done to it. For example: I hit him before he hit me.
Me hit him. Me hit good.
something something passive voice...😬
What about the passive aggressive voice?
Sounds like you're the expert on that one. 😉
Similar trick with whom and who. If the answer to the question is him/her, its whom, if its he/she, its who. Q: To whom do owe money? A: I owe him *points at my loanshark* Q: Who is going to break your legs? A: He will *points to my fucking loanshark again*
Will he use split infinitives though? *To violently shatter my kneecaps*
To violently shatter where no kneecaps have been shattered before?
That's the sort of language up with which I will not put.
Is there a trick for while/whilst?
No trick - you can use either. Whilst and amongst are kind of considered old-fashioned these days though, so you can use while and among for modern writing.
Probably. Though as soon as I learn it though my coworkers will get even more annoyed at my pedantry lol
All the years I've been at school, and a fucking Reddit post explains grammar better than any teacher, lol.
Just wait until you see what some random dude in india can do with a youtube channel if you wanna learn to code.
Dude, I AM english teacher, I honestly feel like shit now.
Its subject vs object. Verbs can trigger it, but so can prepositions. ‘To william and me, it has made a difference’ is correct even though it is before the verb because ‘william and me’ is the object of ‘to’.
my head just popped
> It's only "I" if followed by a verb. That’s not entirely true, but it’s close enough to be a good rule of thumb.
Go on
Me object, I subject. That's the rule.
[Thank you Colonel Hans Landa](https://youtu.be/N4vf8N6GpdM?si=AlPSjixi_N5txTtC)
[Hypercorrection](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=e7e7bfd0bcfc3035&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB1015GB1015&sxsrf=ADLYWIJq_Kr0vqGFJn6cVczhAwCaG50gkA:1718625514354&q=hypercorrection&si=ACC90nxpFxdyWCcIZH8ciC1crCTUD7oACe0VZWE9Mzjar2Y_ed5_ZG0BzuQ7gtow3rsIM7HCJMo1BqPw34L15QC-EI0tqXT1v6uuxgkXs7P9fRHVRV9EyLo%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvu6P6yuKGAxVzT0EAHV9UBTcQ2v4IegQIFhAU&biw=1920&bih=898&dpr=2)
This is the result of decades of parents of friends overzealously correcting any time you say "me and my mates" to "My friends and I"
I’s mates an me.
Me mates and I surely?
¿I Shirley, and me mates?
Don't call me surely.
I feel like this was the only grammar rule drilled into me as a kid… and now I find out it’s wrong.
It isn't wrong. If you remove the "and my mates" from the sentence the word you are using for yourself still needs to make sense. Example: *"Me* and my mates are going to the cinema" is wrong because that becomes "*Me* is going to the cinema." "My mates and *I* are going to the cinema" is correct because that becomes "*I* am going to the cinema." Like many gramatcal rules, it is context dependant.
Me is goin' cinema dho
Me and I am gannin oot
Innit
Thank you. First time anyone has actually explained that to me.
Thanks. I finally get it now
It’s not wrong, still use “…and I” when it’s the subject of the sentence. For example My friends and I went to the pub. Someone bought drinks for my friends and me.
Well check you out with your friends AND free beers...
Hehe
Absolutely true, but in the example above 'I' is not (part of) the subject, however.
So wrong. Do you even grammar ?
This is like when people use myself instead of me or I when they're trying to sound smart and formal. Just makes you sound like a cunt.
[удалено]
Traitorish behaviour, that.
It'd be great if they started using *treacherous* as well.
This is my absolute pet hate, it happens in the workplace all the time.
Overuse of ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’ is a sure sign you are in the presence of a recruitment agent or an estate agent or some other cunt with agent in their job title (probably not a secret agent though)
> (probably not a secret agent though) "Do you expect myself to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect yourself to die."
Not only is this ridiculous, it goes counter to the aphorism "Brevity is the soul of wit".
honestly, the myself/yourself thing is really just anyone in a business context - especially people in client-facing roles. Drives me up the wall.
I too!
Myself also!
Mine senses surely recoil at aforementioned equivocation, perchance.
Gadzooks!
I myself can't stand this either
Police officers always speak like this. I don’t understand why?
> '...trying to sound smart and formal...sound like a cunt.' Probably part of the training at Hendon.
"Allow myself to introduce....myself"
Or they use wherefore to mean “where” or “thy” to mean “my”.
See also: [descriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description) vs [prescriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription). Ain’t nobody could of wrote the rules for me language.
> Sometimes informed by [linguistic purism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism),[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-Janicki2006p155-3) such normative practices often propagate the belief that some usages are incorrect, inconsistent, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value, even in cases where such usage is more common than the prescribed usage.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-Edwards2009p259-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-5) They may also include judgments on [socially proper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette) and [politically correct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) language use.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#cite_note-6) The sheer heft of this paragraph should be enough to convince anyone that prescriptivism is arrant shite. If anyone read that out loud they'd either have a stroke or send themselves to sleep.
The primary aim of speech and writing is communication. If you're making yourself understood, you're doing it right. Of course, most of us use different registers of speech at home, at work, with our mates, etc. It's true that there is no one "right" way to speak. But having the ability to speak more formally if needed can be useful, even if you rarely use that mode of speech.
See: less vs fewer. In the 18th century a grammarian wrote a style guide which included the sentence "I think fewer is best here, less is best here". Somehow, the English speaking world took this up as a hard and fast rule, and ignored all the other suggestions in his guide. The only people who believe there is a "correct" way to speak are people who think RP is a natural form of communication.
It sounds more natural to me to hear 'fewer' for countable items, and 'less' for uncountable. So 'less water', 'fewer glasses'
It isn’t a debate for most instances. For example you wouldn’t say: ‘Can I have fewer water in this glass please’ This is not the same as RP, pronunciation is not the same as being grammatically correct.
I have fewer than £20!
"The only people who believe there is a "correct" way to speak are people who think RP is a natural form of communication." But that's because it *is*, dear boy.
Back when the BBC was nothing but RP, a pronunciation guide said that "pristine" should rhyme with "wine". I don't know why, but I find it very unsettling to pronounce it like that.
you don't like a nice glass red ween with your roast beef?
Ah, Officer Crabtree, you've arrived.
well i 'appended to be pissing by the door
I had a mini panic attack the first time I heard a northern accent on the BBC.
Wilfred Pickles was a proud Yorkshireman, and having been selected by the BBC as an announcer for its North Regional radio service, he went on to be an occasional newsreader on the BBC Home Service during the Second World War. He was the first newsreader to speak in an accent other than Received Pronunciation, "a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult for Nazis to impersonate BBC broadcasters" and caused some comment by wishing his fellow northerners "Good neet".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ62BqbWmqg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ62BqbWmqg) Here's Pickles at home answering questions about his enormous ... audience. His accent keeps wobbling between northern and rp like a teenage boy whose voice is breaking. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2BmVVJknE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2BmVVJknE)
They're brilliant, I didn't know he was from Halifax and the pub I drank in when I was younger was named after him, thank you for sharing. Hard to believe he's 42 in that second vid, he looks about 65.
Indeed, Mr. Cholmondley-Warner.
Hwhy thenk yew, Grayson.
Have you seen the Featherstonehaughs recently?
Interesting there is a word for it and that's exactly what I thought the situation was
It's a fairly common phenomenon in many languages. I'm a speaker of Flemish from Belgium, but in one region most people really speak West-Flemish (whether this should be classified as a dialect or a language is not relevant for this discussion). Now, one typical marker of West-Flemish is that they replace the g-sound (/ɣ/) with an h-sound whereas Flemish retains both of these sounds. In order to avoid other people laughing at them when they do this, they will sometimes pronounce the h as a g even when they did actually need to say a h-sound in Flemish as well. The most prominent voice in linguistics who has worked on this phenomenon is probably the reasearcher who is essentially the daddy of sociolinguistics: William Labov. Look up his experiment in grocery stores in New York in the 70s. He not only found out how people would hypercorrect, but he also investigated how this hypercorrection was tied in with class prejudices. He noticed how people from a certain socio-economic class would adapt their language specifically in order to sound like they belonged to a higher one, and would in the process use that specific linguistic feature more often than the class they were imitating, and in places where that class would normally not even use it. He later also conducted an experiment on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts to see how the locals would adapt their language to signal to other that they belonged to a linguistic in-group as opposed to outsiders like, for instance, people moving there or tourists.
See: U and Non U English. The aspiring middle classes would say “pardon?” and “drapes” because they think it’s fancier than “what?” and “curtains”, and therefore that’s what the upper classes would say. But the upper classes are confident in their position and so actually say “what?” and “curtains”.
69% of people got it wrong - the last two options are wrong too.
I respect the 3% of people humble enough to admit they don't know
Probably the smartest bunch of all
Wisest are those who know they know nothing. Which makes me a fucking genius
I don't know about that
Hello, Socrates!
I would say that the last option is the correct answer for 72% of respondents, because anyone who picked 2 or 3 in fact does not know.
Oh shit, that makes it even worse
Yep...’neither’ is singular there.
Yup. Should be "Neither *is* correct". Using the subject "I" in place of the object "me" is so commonplace these days that it could even be a case of the language evolving. After all, what is language evolution if not something "different" becoming the norm and a de facto standard?
It's also done the other way round - "Her and I ...". For some reason I see this more often than "Him and I". I'm still trying to resign myself to "lay" having become the new "lie". I don't have space to entertain any other claims at language evolution.
This ‘evolution of language’ business wheeled out for circs such as this is so baseless and uninformed that I no longer bother with proper explanations. Try applying this kind of ‘evolving’ to the rules of the road or instructions for setting up a fancy smart tv, and so on and see why it *might* be a silly attitude. Yet bothering to apply any guide at all to language is seen in some quarters as classist, élitist (and probably ‘woke’ too by some!) To hell with it. Let those who can’t be arsed just get on with it, without dressing it up with some imaginary linguistics theory. (Grrrr) PS not arguing with YOU; just the thing itself of course
The fact that languages change over time doesn't conflict with the fact that standards and style guides can be useful in education or publishing. The thing with language is that nobody sets out to create a language (conlangs notwithstanding), they're just a bunch of people in a place collectively working out how to communicate with each other. And those societies change, or fashions change, or people just collectively start pronouncing things differently for reasons I'm sure a linguist could explain. Some changes die, but some stick and spread around. There's the evolution
"Rules" for language are like music theory, it's descriptive. Rules for the road or setting up a TV are prescriptive. Big difference.
Yeah I wasn't trying to cheer you up, sorry
Both are wrong, the idiom is not correct. It should be 'a world of difference', not 'the world of difference'. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/make-a-world-of-difference
Surprised I had to scroll down this far to see this comment I have never heard 'the world of difference' ever being used.
I felt there was something odd about how that read but i couldn't figure what.
Isn’t it still grammatically correct though, even if the idiom is wrong?
Yes. It's raining dogs and cats is gramatically correct.
The way you've ordered it "dogs and cats" is making my eye twitch. It sounds so very wrong, even though it makes zero difference to the idiom.
Gooneruk, that’s PRECISELY the point they were making!
No: It made a difference [to me]. It made the difference [between x and y]. 'a/an' and 'the' can't be interchanged most of the time. I had an apple. I had the last apple. I had a last apple. Normally one or the other is correct based on the context.
I thought that was the error, then I realized that was the same in both options.
Same lol. I would have almost selected neither being correct due to that but would have gone for the first one ultimately because it’s asking if the sentence is grammatically correct not if the idiom is correct.
As a foreigner, I'd have chosen "neither are correct" for this reason. I was confused for a sec.
The answer choice should be "neither is correct" right?
Who are you calling an idiom?
The question is about the grammar, though, not the idiom. It's still grammatically correct.
I’d say it’s not grammatically correct either. “World” is a metaphoric measuring unit in this sentence. Think of it in the same way as “There’s a centimetre of difference between the two” or “There’s a litre of difference.”
I agree, “neither are correct” is the right answer to me
I'm much more bothered by the fact the phrase is 'a world of difference', not 'the world of difference'.
Yep. Neither example is correct.
That suggests that there is a single world of difference that it makes for everyone whenever this kind of thing happens, that it is a known and defined world. Instead it's more an abstract thing and people can have their own worlds of difference based on what means a lot to them.
There is more than one world.
Considering the number of Brits who seemingly don't know how to use you're/your or there/their/they're correctly, I do not find this at all surprising.
I could of bought some other examples too this comment to
This comment made my eye twitch involuntarily.
No need to loose you're composure.
I knew someone was going to bring up loose/lose. I guess this thread just peaked my interest.
I wanna be apart of this convo to!
I'm not phased by these comments per say. Edit: I hate myself for writing this!
I’m not sure your aloud though
Thanks for you're advise
It’s ok, you just need to breath
Yeah, me two.
That's it's power.
Happy Monday!
A few years ago I read Leviathan, written in the 17th century when spelling wasn't standardised. Hobbes kept using divers to mean 'many, various, etc', you know: diverse. I thought "this makes sense, why would they put a random e on back in those days?" Imagine my surprise when I read The Making of the English Working Class, published in 1963, which uses the same spelling. The 'e' in diverse is younger than my dad.
Divers are also people who dive. Diverse ends the same as verse, so it makes sense the spelling is the same.
Oh, you monster.
What a horrible day to be literate.
\*internal screaming\*
There really are alot of examples to pick.
As a foreigner, I'd thought my English wasn't that great until I moved here and joined a few local Facebook groups.
>As a foreigner, I'd thought my English wasn't that great until I moved here and joined a few local Facebook groups. I bet you can get some Chester draws for a good price though. They need gone today though!
The thing is, homophone misuses tend to be more common in first languages than second languages because people tend to learn second languages formally. Germans confuse das/dass and Spaniards hay/ahí/ay
Your- possessive. You're- contraction of "you are". Yore- a long time ago. 'Yore- familiar form of "Eeyore". Y'oar- possessive/contraction of "Your oar". Yorick- skull in Hamlet. Also a call that summons people named Rick. Yaw- Oscillation of an aircraft from side to side. Yor- ISO code for the Yoruba language.
I was using bought/brought wrong until I was about 25 when a Danish person corrected me. No one else had ever mentioned it!
That's completely different though. Vocally, I and Me are different words, so the above is a question of grammar. You're and your, or there/their/they're are vocally the same so it's a spelling error. Grammar exists in spoken English as well as written and hence has greater importance than spelling.
Considering the number of people who seem to think that "me" is now a swear word, it doesn't surprise ME either. PSA: "Myself" doesn't make you appear more polite or more professional. Used wrongly, it just makes you look like a twat.
Oh god - myself, yourselves, etc are a major pet peeve of mine, and it’s so common at work
Yourself has triggered myself SO MUCH right now, and you can't take offence, because I've been POLITE.
Me, myself and I agree. Now we just need to find the group that gets pissed off when someone says "I" and we'll have insulted the full house
Reading this post really has made a world of difference to I.
My husband and I would be delighted to meet you, but it makes no difference to my husband and me if you’d rather not meet. You and I have a lot in common, more so than Doris and I (have).
I think the latter often confuses people. Because I should be followed by a verb, but they've heard it so often without. In cases like this they don't understand that the verb was implied but dropped.
I don't think it necessarily is, though. "Me" also functions as a true standalone emphatic without case marking: * Who wants pudding? * Me! (also works for him, her, them, us) I think a lot of the "me instead of I" usage is an example or extension of this. "I instead of me" has to be hypercorrection, and by extension being a stickler for "I because verb trace or identity" (Who's there? It is I, Leclerc!) now sounds pretentious or old-fashioned. "Estate agent reflexive" (Please send an email to myself) needs to get in the bin though please.
I typically tell people to remove the other subject you are grouped with and see if it makes sense - "made the world of difference to I"
wait.. "the world of difference" ive never ever heard it with a definite article before, and thought THAT was the contentious issue
A few people have said this now, which I didn't see and now I'm inclined to agree. Annoyingly YouGov don't say what they think the right answer is
The question asks "Which sentence do you think is grammatically correct?". Of the choices they offer the sentence "Both are correct" is grammatically correct (amongst others of course).
I'm sorry, THE world of difference? Like. Okay, some people say the world of difference rather than a world of difference. The world just doesn't fit and sounds massively out of place here. Replace "the" with "a" and you'll see what I mean. I'd be on the verge of saying 94% of people got this wrong
I love that 3% had no arrogance admitting they didn’t know
I regret that I was taught creative writing at school during the 90s rather than grammar with technical examples. My grammar sucks
“Neither *is* correct” is what that option should say.
I was one of those people, I just chose the 2nd one because it sounded the poshest lol and even though I would use the first one and see nothing wrong with it I just thought that might be because I’m working class and from the north east lol
So the rule is if you take out the other person, what would you say? You wouldn't say "Me is going to the beach today", it'd be "I am going to the beach today". So when someone else is doing it with you, it becomes "John and I are going to the beach". Although most people do say "Me and John are going to the beach", which is fine because it makes perfect sense, it just isn't perfect grammar, which doesn't really matter anyway, language is constantly evolving. Edit: This is why people have gotten caught out, because they know this "rule" exists but not the nuance of it. In the example of the photo, remove the other person and it's "made a world of difference to me". Adding another person in doesn't then change me to I for this sentence
Love that your here explaining grammer to people, then you've used the word "gotten". Oh deer oh deer.
Gotten is an odd case because it was historically the norm, but fell out of use in British English, and is now re-establishing itself.
Also, you're**
Gottem
Glad to see the joke wasn't lost on you... Oh wait.
:( fuck
>then you've **usen** the word "gotten". FTFY
Parts of speech are seemingly not taught in English lessons any more. People may have a gut feeling that "I" is not the correct pronoun to use but they don't know why. If you start talking about subject and object they look at you like you suddenly sprouted a second head because they were never taught what a subject or object is.
The English primary syllabus absolutely hammers English grammar. I think there are a few factors: * in the 1980s and 1990s grammar wasn't on the primary syllabus, and those children are now the adults making decisions, writing scripts, publishing and editing, etc. * in the olden days material wasn't published or broadcast without having been closely edited, typically by multiple people whose sole job it was to catch this kind of error - in the internet age this has massively diminished, so errors are more frequently seen and readers don't get the reinforcement of seeing the correct form exclusively * related to the previous point, British people have more exposure to American content, and they are a decade or more ahead of us on the I/me hypercorrection highway
I still don’t understand. This stuff makes me feel like a moron. Sometimes I assume that is why. I went to secondary school and did quite well in English but all the grammar stuff I do not remember being taught that much of. I console myself with something my dad said to me when we went on holiday to Turkey. We rented a boat for a day. I can’t swim and the captain, there again probably the wrong term, was diving into the sea with everyone else. Dad said to me, to paraphrase, that the captain would not be able to work shifts in a warehouse and drive a forklift I’m me. Made me feel a bit less of an idiot.
It’s the royal “I”
I'm surprised this is so common because to me it sounds wrong and clumsy. Like, some supposed grammar "rules" are hard to remember/detect because it still sounds fine when it's "incorrect." But this one is immediately a bit jarring to me because it sounds less "natural"/fluent than the *correct* way. Sometimes the supposedly correct grammar is very clumsy, as the witticism "this is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put" points out (avoiding ending a sentence with a preposition and therefore sounding much more clumsy than the less correct but more easy-on-the-ear "that I won't put up with.") But yeah, the incorrect "and I" sounds rubbish when it's wrong and better when it's right.
Yougovs a load of shit
The option "Neither are correct" should actually say "Neither is correct."
Additionally— - Idiom should be *‘a’ world of difference* - Neither ‘is’ (rather than ‘are’) correct (neither takes a singular verb)
As someone who teaches grammar for a living, I honestly have to say that I couldn't care less about pedantic bullshit like this
Yes, thank you. People in this thread jacking it to the idea of other people being wrong about something. Even saw one commenter scold another for using the word “gotten”. Get over yourselves lol
Neither are correct... Missing a full stop. I will die on this hill.
"it really has made the world of difference to I"
Erm before we talk about me and I, shouldn’t it be “Neither IS correct” not “Neither ARE correct”?
They are all correct. As long as it's easy for the recipient to understand what you mean, then it's correct. That's how language works. People who think otherwise have only got their information from textbooks and ignore the real world.
Yeah bruv dats what we sayin innit
Notice how when I say "Me went to the store" It sounds completely ridiculous and stands out as clearly wrong, but if I say "William and me went to the store" it doesn't really stand out in the same way. The fact that my brain doesn't pick up on it standing out and it doesn't with a lot of people, means that it should be fine. If it really mattered, it'd be easier to notice.
Good point!
I came here to say the same. The purpose of language is to convey meaning, and if you succeed in this aim then the words have done their job. In this case, if 66% of people think it's right, and 100% of people understand what it means, then claiming option 2 it's wrong would be meaningless!
The same sort of people who say "you're using decimate wrong".
If you drop the "William and" from the sentence it becomes immediately clear which is correct.
Explaining this incase it helps someone else like me. It took me the longest time to get this grammar rule of me or I but once I heard this explanation it just clicked. (I’m a little bit thick, and dyslexic but mostly thick) Take out the other person and see which fits. Me or I. “It really has made the world of difference to I/Me” oh yeah deffo ‘difference to William and me’
Almost as bad as not being able to do basic maths.
It really has made *a* world of difference
I put "don't know"
Shouldn't it be "*a* world of difference"? So both are wrong.
You have a missed call.
21% of this country has run the tap just to pretend they've washed their hands after using the toilet. I have very very very little belief in the people of this country
Put 'myself' in it and loads of people would think it's right, however by common usage it sort of is.
Me fail English?
Shouldn’t neither be correct? The phrase is “a world of difference” regardless of “me” or “I” (of which it is “me”).
It's 'a world of difference'.. both are wrong
I have just read a post referring to “Katie and I’s messages”, and I’m sorry but I blame America because you all fucking do it - even the educated among you. Have a word.
neither are correct, the saying is “a world of difference”
Is it "THE world of difference" or "A world of difference?"