Re: Digital Negatives & PT/PD / language & Grammar Police
After all the nominative vocative consideration, It's still a poetic issue in this case......
(I / sky). Not to mention the evening sky being likened to an etherised patient.
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Dave Soemarko wrote:
But I don't think the two are of the same grammatical sense.
He could have said "let us go, you and me," and that would be correct too, but in that case, the "you and me" would be the object of the verb "let," and the sentence would mean "let us, you and me, go."
But he said, "let us go, you and I." This is also grammatically correct but in a different way. Grammatically the "you and I" is not the object but the addressee. That's why I said it was in vocative case.
Logically or pratically the two sentences might mean the same thing, but grammatically they are different.
From: Richard Sullivan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: Digital Negatives & PT/PD / language & Grammar Police
From a New Yawk Times Book Review 1984
>>Finally, one tends to lick past the whimsical flavor of the examples to the marrow of their structure. ''Let's you and me get together and do away with some of the possibilities,'' she writes to illustrate a correct case of pronouns in apposition to another pronoun. How's that again: ''Let's you and me ''? Right: '' You and me are in apposition with 's , which equals us , the object of let. '' This makes perfect sense. Let you and me get together and do away with some of the possibilities.
But hold on! This means that one of the great writers of the 20th century committed a grammatical blunder in one of his most famous poems. ''Let us go then, you and I,'' reads the first line of T. S. Eliot's ''Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.'' ''When the evening is spread out against the sky/ Like a patient etherised upon a table.'' Oh, well, it just goes to show that all of us writers make our share of grammatical errors. Me and T. S. Eliot! T. S. Eliot and I. <<