• _____@lemm.eeEnglish
    568·
    1 month ago

    English is bent to our will in daily life and yet people act like God wrote the law on how to speak English and we’re all committing sins of biblical proportions.

    No. You know what ? “Me and Mark” is perfectly okay because you understood exactly what the sentence meant. That’s the purpose of language.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      455·
      1 month ago

      Several counter-points:

      • There is an unnecessary space before your question mark.
      • Ideally, you should use single quotes when distinguishing words or phrases within the text
      • The phrase ‘and yet’ is redundant. Simply “yet” would have been more appropriate.

      I believe if you check closely, this rebuttal is ironclad.

    • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
      145·
      1 month ago

      It’s about respect for the reader or listener. Using correct language eases the burden of deciphering what you are trying to say by using consistent forms. Otherwise it take extra effort for them to unscramble your words and figure out your meaning.

      And yes, of course someone can figure out that when you say “me and Mike” you almost certainly mean to say “Mike and I”. But you’re making it harder for them by not bothering to learn or use the correct form.

      • rbits@lemm.ee
        84·
        1 month ago

        Me and Mike is not any harder to understand than Mike and I. It is harder for the speaker to always make sure they’re using the correct form, though. The extra effort for the speaker must also be considered. Sure, if you’re writing a book you should probably try to use the correct form, but in casual conversation it does not matter, and is more effort than it’s worth (at least in this case)

  • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    1 month ago

    Now I want to see a party of all pedants where everyone enjoys correcting others. Finally, that phrase won’t be sarcastic!

  • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    182·
    1 month ago

    Since red guy is totally not a monster, it makes much more sense to compare them to the creator than to the monster. And since this is a comic, the words are written and therefore read/ seen or – in universe – watched.

    • Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      7·
      1 month ago

      But his hair looks like the stereotypical description of Frankenstein’s monster, not Dr. Frankenstein who as far as I am aware doesn’t have a stereotyped hair style

      That said, my favorite pedantic response would be: Dr. Frankenstein was the monster. And his child should share his last name anyways.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 month ago

        Frankenstein didn’t have a doctorate, and the monster murdered people in cold blood. I suppose you could argue that Victor was also a monster (particularly for allowing Justine to die when he could have saved her if he’d spoken up and taken responsibility for his actions) but the monster was definitely a monster, albeit a sympathetic one.

  • AEsheron@lemmy.world
    9·
    1 month ago

    Seeing as there is very clear paternal symbolism throughout, and even internal dialog of the minster monster referring to the “doctor” as his father, I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume the minster monster took the same surname.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      4·
      1 month ago

      I read that as minister and not monster and was very confused. I thought I must have missed a reference to a different movie.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 month ago

        Ah, I made the same mistake!

        I suspect it was when he wrote “minister” that led me to read it as “minister”, but it really could have been anything. I’m kind of tired, so that might have been it.