1771: "It Was I"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby chridd » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:15 am UTC

flicky1991 wrote:I never saw "whom" as formal - just following an older standard.
Then, are there (a significant number of) people who would simultaneously follow the older standard of "whom" and the newer standard of "it was me"?
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 876
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby da Doctah » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:17 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Aw, c'mon! In a galaxy where there are people who talk like Yoda and others who talk like Jar-Jar Binks, and nobody says boo to either of them, you're going to make a big deal about this?

But they aren't human. We don't expect those people to speak correctly...

Neither are Chewbacca and R2D2 human, and everybody converses with them as well with no apparent difficulty or misunderstanding.

Which makes you wonder why Anakin felt there was a need for a protocol droid capable of understanding over six million languages.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:25 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Neither are Chewbacca and R2D2 human, and everybody converses with them as well with no apparent difficulty or misunderstanding.
Maybe their dialect is impeccably standard, it's just their pronunciation that's a bit impenetrable. ;)


Which makes you wonder why Anakin felt there was a need for a protocol droid capable of understanding over six million languages.
It's those moisture vaporators. Like the binary loadlifters, they just speak their own very dense patois and refuse to try and fit in, obviously.

(Bonus pun: "Can they even use normal human speech?" "No, they cant.")

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby flicky1991 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:10 pm UTC

chridd wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I never saw "whom" as formal - just following an older standard.
Then, are there (a significant number of) people who would simultaneously follow the older standard of "whom" and the newer standard of "it was me"?
Probably not, but the fact that it's unlikely distracts from the fact that it's possible. :P
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

Aiwendil
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Aiwendil » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:22 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Neither are Chewbacca and R2D2 human, and everybody converses with them as well with no apparent difficulty or misunderstanding.

Which makes you wonder why Anakin felt there was a need for a protocol droid capable of understanding over six million languages.


That's not really true. Only C-3PO seems to be able to understand R2-D2 unaided, and he routinely acts as interpreter for him. When Luke is in his X-Wing, he has a computer screen that translates what R2 says.

I can't readily think of any instances where anyone other than Han or C-3PO converse freely with Chewbacca, either.

drazen
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby drazen » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

Aiwendil wrote:I can't readily think of any instances where anyone other than Han or C-3PO converse freely with Chewbacca, either.


I think Yoda talks with him just before Chewbacca takes him for a piggyback ride after Order 66 is executed during RotS.


The premise is a bit off. Both are ostensibly correct. It was I is not an archaic formulation; it's just more formal speech. http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/68966/it-was-me-or-it-was-i

Personally, I think "It was I who" sounds way better overall, and triply so if you're a menacing, all-powerful galactic overlord. "It was me who" or, even worse, "It was me that" just sounds awkward when I hear it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26412
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:52 am UTC

flicky1991 wrote:Therefore, if you say "It is me.", then you'd logically say "Whom are you?", if you are the kind of person who says "whom".

Right?
Wrong. The intuition to use object pronouns in "It [be] {person}" sentences almost certainly has to do with the pronoun coming after a verb, not with it being the object of a verb (since after all "be" isn't transitive and so "me" isn't the object of "It was me").

It's interesting me that you take issue with the (arbitrary invented) rule that only nominative pronouns can come after "be", while simultaneously having no problem with the use of "it" to refer to oneself. Surely the most logical construction would be "I am I", no?

drazen wrote:Personally, I think "It was I who" sounds way better overall, and triply so if you're a menacing, all-powerful galactic overlord. "It was me who" or, even worse, "It was me that" just sounds awkward when I hear it.
It was me what done it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby chridd » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:40 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wrong. The intuition to use object pronouns in "It [be] {person}" sentences almost certainly has to do with the pronoun coming after a verb, not with it being the object of a verb (since after all "be" isn't transitive and so "me" isn't the object of "It was me").
I'm not convinced this is correct, because...
• I'm not convinced that "be" isn't transitive in English dialects that allow "it is me", "I am him", "we are them", etc.; reanalyzing "be" as an ordinary transitive verb is one way this usage of cases could have come about.
• The rule isn't about being after a verb, since, at least in my dialect (which has "it is me", etc.), I'd always say "Am I right?", "Is he the one?", etc., not *"Am me right?" or *"Is me right?", *"Is him the one?"; those pronouns clearly come after verbs and get the subject form.
• At least in my dialect, it seems "me", "us", "him", "her", "them" are the default forms, with subject forms only used in certain positions. "It is me" isn't because "me" is after the verb/in the object position, but rather because "me" isn't in the subject position. (I'd also use "me" in the vocative ("Me, stop doing that!"), in contrastive topics ("You like that; now, me, I don't like it"), and sentence fragments ("Who did this?" "Not me!"), as well as of course direct and indirect objects and objects of prepositions.) If I were to use who/whom like I do I/me, he/him, etc. (which is what I was taught), then yes it would be "Whom are you?".
That said, I don't know what the intuition would be for someone who does use "whom" for objects; perhaps they'd treat who/whom differently from he/him, and thus say "Who are you?" but "I am him".

It's interesting me that you take issue with the (arbitrary invented) rule that only nominative pronouns can come after "be", while simultaneously having no problem with the use of "it" to refer to oneself. Surely the most logical construction would be "I am I", no?
• I'm pretty sure that he's taking issue with object pronouns after "be", not with subject pronouns after "be".
• I see no connection between where subject vs. object pronouns are used and whether "it" should be used there.
• The construction "it is I"/"it is me" isn't referring to the speaker as "it"; the construction is using "it" as a dummy pronoun, similar to both "it"'s in "it seems like it's raining".
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby flicky1991 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:23 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It's interesting me that you take issue with

Let me just start by saying I'm not taking issue with anything, just being overly analytical. It was supposed to be for comic effect in my initial post, but we seem to be beyond that...

And... oh, my responses to the rest of what you said are already covered in chridd's post. :mrgreen:
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

Mikeski
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Mikeski » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:17 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Surely the most logical construction would be "I am I", no?

Since He referred to Himself that way, yes, surely.

gmalivuk wrote:It was me what done it.

Naw, it was me done did it.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 876
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:52 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Surely the most logical construction would be "I am I", no?

Since He referred to Himself that way, yes, surely.

Who He? Don Quixote?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:54 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It was me what done it.

Naw, it was me done did it.

Me Sparticus!

You Jane.

User avatar
rhhardin
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby rhhardin » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:51 am UTC

IThe mistake is thinking it's a sentence with a relative clause, for which the rule is use "who" for persons.

It's not. It's a cleft sentence, and "that" is used. A single word X is picked out and inserted in "It was X that rest of sentence without X"

He ran the mile quickly; It was he that ran the mile. It was a mile that he ran quickly. It was quickly that he ran the mile.

X carries its original case.

Thus it's correctly "It was I that allowed the alliance to know."

The starting mistake is thinking "who" should be used, ending with getting stuck in the wrong controveersy (It is I/me).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby orthogon » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:33 pm UTC

chridd wrote:The construction "it is I"/"it is me" isn't referring to the speaker as "it"; the construction is using "it" as a dummy pronoun, similar to both "it"'s in "it seems like it's raining".


I thought of those as being impersonal rather than dummy pronouns, but it seems the jury is out and some linguists lump "weather it" with the dummy pronoun it in sentences like this:.

gmalivuk wrote:It's interesting me that you take issue with [the rule]


In that case (according to the Great Wiki) it's being used for extraposition, the canonical sentence being "That you take issue with the rule is interesting me", which seems grammatical to me if a bit archaic.

If we unroll the the Emperor's extraposition we get to something like:
[The person] who allowed the alliance to know the position was I


Unrolling the relative clause we have:
I allowed the alliance to know the position.


I'm pretty sure that the case of the pronoun in this sentence (the "deep structure"?) is relevant to its case in the original. Surely he would say:
It was me that you saw coming out of that sex shop


Pseudo-edit: rhhardin has covered this more knowledgeably than I.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26412
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:50 pm UTC

chridd wrote:The rule isn't about being after a verb, since, at least in my dialect (which has "it is me", etc.), I'd always say "Am I right?", "Is he the one?", etc., not *"Am me right?" or *"Is me right?", *"Is him the one?"; those pronouns clearly come after verbs and get the subject form.
After the subject and verb, then.

At least in my dialect, it seems "me", "us", "him", "her", "them" are the default forms, with subject forms only used in certain positions. "It is me" isn't because "me" is after the verb/in the object position, but rather because "me" isn't in the subject position. (I'd also use "me" in the vocative ("Me, stop doing that!"), in contrastive topics ("You like that; now, me, I don't like it"), and sentence fragments ("Who did this?" "Not me!"), as well as of course direct and indirect objects and objects of prepositions.) If I were to use who/whom like I do I/me, he/him, etc. (which is what I was taught), then yes it would be "Whom are you?".
That said, I don't know what the intuition would be for someone who does use "whom" for objects; perhaps they'd treat who/whom differently from he/him, and thus say "Who are you?" but "I am him".
Yeah, "me" as the default form is probably the more accurate rule. I don't think anyone extends that to all object pronouns though. I occasionally use "whom" but never as the base form.[/quote]
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

qvxb
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby qvxb » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

Here's Skip and Flip's opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJBYs9AFgiM

I'm unaware if A. Yankovic has weighed in.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby moody7277 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:14 am UTC

Weeks wrote:Image


Who has two thumbs and allowed the Alliance to know the location of the shield generator? This guy!

gmalivuk wrote:
drazen wrote:Personally, I think "It was I who" sounds way better overall, and triply so if you're a menacing, all-powerful galactic overlord. "It was me who" or, even worse, "It was me that" just sounds awkward when I hear it.

It was me what done it


So, more of a menacing, all-powerful Cockney overlord.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
Murderbot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:29 am UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Murderbot » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Murderbot wrote:Is the Emperor sitting on a talking chair, like Stephen Hawking?
da Doctah wrote:Aw, c'mon! In a galaxy where there are people who talk like Yoda and others who talk like Jar-Jar Binks, and nobody says boo to either of them, you're going to make a big deal about this?
I think we should hold the Emperor of the Free World to a higher standard than a bumbling buffoon and a mystical monk.


Wait, are we still talking about StarWars or did you switch to PEOTUS?

What's PEOTUS?
aerion111 wrote:
Murderbot wrote:Is the Emperor sitting on a talking chair, like Stephen Hawking?
da Doctah wrote:Aw, c'mon! In a galaxy where there are people who talk like Yoda and others who talk like Jar-Jar Binks, and nobody says boo to either of them, you're going to make a big deal about this?
I think we should hold the Emperor of the Free World to a higher standard than a bumbling buffoon and a mystical monk.

I assume you meant that irrespective?
Though I suppose there is a case to be made for calling Yoda a buffoon at times, and Jar-Jar certainly has some monk-like qualities at times.
"bumbling buffoon" came just came to mind and then I had to come up with another alliteration and forgot to put them in order.
kalira wrote:Well, GrammarNazi!Luke never met JarJar. And as far as Yoda goes, don't you think it's a little suspicious he suddenly dies right as Luke gets back to him from Cloud City when he wasn't at all ill beforehand? Clearly faked his death so as to avoid any more annoying lectures from GN!Luke regarding his way of speaking.

Or maybe GN!Luge euthanized him for his grammatical impurity.
somitomi wrote:You say goodbye, I say hello.

You say tomato, I say potato.
Last edited by Murderbot on Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby HES » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:30 pm UTC

Murderbot wrote:What's PEOTUS?

Given that POTUS is President Of The United States, I'd assume PEOTUS refers to the power hungry President Elect.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby orthogon » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:37 pm UTC

HES wrote:
Murderbot wrote:What's PEOTUS?

Given that POTUS is President Of The United States, I'd assume PEOTUS refers to the power hungry President Elect.

Power Hungry Arrogant Lecherous Loudmouth of the United States, or PHALLUS?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Murderbot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:29 am UTC

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Murderbot » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:03 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
HES wrote:
Murderbot wrote:What's PEOTUS?

Given that POTUS is President Of The United States, I'd assume PEOTUS refers to the power hungry President Elect.

Power Hungry Arrogant Lecherous Loudmouth of the United States, or PHALLUS?

So, Bill?
Image

User avatar
Soup
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Comfy Chair

Re: 1771: "It Was I"

Postby Soup » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It was me what done it.

Naw, it was me done did it.


Reminds me of a favorite song lyric, "... done packed my shit and got gone!"

EDIT
Spoiler:
5:28
Waiting for it...

Go username5243, musthavebeenmykarma, Rakhal, thunk!!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Keyman, moody7277 and 49 guests