Reanalysis of English pronouns?

[abahot]

It's well-known that the "subjective" forms of English pronouns are, in the colloquial language, being more and more restricted in their use. For example, "he and I did X" becomes "me and him did X", and "it's she" (as an answer to "who is it?") becomes "it's her". The only role left for "subjective" pronouns is when they are the sole subject of a verb.

So I propose the analysis that the "subjective pronouns" are actually in the process of evolving into verbal particles expressing the subject of the verb in the sentence. This is the only role they appear in, and further evidence comes from the fact that they can be repeated with an explicit subject already present ("The tree, it fell over") even when the subject is also a pronoun ("Me, I've been there").

Of course, these "subjective pronouns" don't seem to be mandatory (except in 1st- and 2nd-person singular forms), given that they can be omitted when an explicit subject is present, but their strange distribution implies that they aren't exactly "real" pronouns anymore. In fact, I predict that in future English, "subjective pronouns" will become mandatory in all sentences regardless of whether another subject exists, and perhaps even become inseparable from the verb, as part of their evolution into verbal particles.

But this is all just conjecture. Does this analysis seem plausible?

[bradrn]

It's well-known that the "subjective" forms of English pronouns are, in the colloquial language, being more and more restricted in their use. For example, "he and I did X" becomes "me and him did X", and "it's she" (as an answer to "who is it?") becomes "it's her". The only role left for "subjective" pronouns is when they are the sole subject of a verb.

So I propose the analysis that the "subjective pronouns" are actually in the process of evolving into verbal particles expressing the subject of the verb in the sentence. This is the only role they appear in, and further evidence comes from the fact that they can be repeated with an explicit subject already present ("The tree, it fell over") even when the subject is also a pronoun ("Me, I've been there").

My own favoured analysis is quite simply that English is functionally marked-nominative: the accusative pronouns are the default forms, with the nominative ones only being used in subject position. I don’t believe constructions like ‘it’s she’ have ever been used in spontaneous speech, except by educated speakers of a certain period who believed that Latin was the model of good grammar in all respects.

As for your second point, this is just a topic–comment construction, and works just as well with object pronouns too: ‘The tree, I cut it down’; ‘That man, they found him’. (It doesn’t seem to work as well with first or second persons, though.)

That being said, the line between full pronouns, pronominal clitics and agreement markers is very blurry in any case, and this is probably one of those instances where multiple analyses are applicable.

Of course, these "subjective pronouns" don't seem to be mandatory (except in 1st- and 2nd-person singular forms), given that they can be omitted when an explicit subject is present, but their strange distribution implies that they aren't exactly "real" pronouns anymore. In fact, I predict that in future English, "subjective pronouns" will become mandatory in all sentences regardless of whether another subject exists, and perhaps even become inseparable from the verb, as part of their evolution into verbal particles.

This isn’t unusual for pronominal clitics: many languages worldwide have clitics (or even agreement affixes!) which are optional with an explicit subject.

[zompist]

But this is all just conjecture. Does this analysis seem plausible?

Yes and no. It's useful to look at French, where pronouns (both subject and object) arguably are parts of the verbal complex. In French:
* little or no material can be inserted into the verbal complex
* the "pronouns" can't be omitted ("je suis ici", "*suis ici")
* in conjunctions, and after a copula, a separate emphatic form (e.g. moi) is used ("lui et moi; c'est moi")
* the emphatic form is also used with Constituent Dislocation ("moi, je l'approuve")

You can still invert subjects sometimes ("Suis-je convaincu?") but it's more restricted than in English ("A God am I" is a little poetic in English, but way better than "*Un dieu suis je").

So French is pretty much where you see English evolving. However, English isn't there yet. (You can predict anything you want for Future English, but that's conlanging, not data for analyzing English.)

* You can still freely insert material before subject and verb. ("You, to my knowledge, are not Armenian.")
* We have a very healthy transformation, Truncation, that deletes 1st and 2nd person subject pronouns. ("Coming!")
* Using object forms in conjunctions is nonstandard, and by no means universal.
* Using subject forms in conjunctions in object position is frequent. ("He's talking to John and I tomorrow.")

[Richard W]

I don’t believe constructions like ‘it’s she’ have ever been used in spontaneous speech, except by educated speakers of a certain period who believed that Latin was the model of good grammar in all respects.

Given that Old English for "it is me" is hit am ic, "it's she" seems quite plausible.

[Richard W]

* Using subject forms in conjunctions in object position is frequent. ("He's talking to John and I tomorrow.")

So far as I am aware, the observed rule is that one says "and I" rather than "and me", a strange consequence of the injunction to use "X and I" rather than "me and X". It doesn't affect the other pronouns.

[abahot]

* Using subject forms in conjunctions in object position is frequent. ("He's talking to John and I tomorrow.")

It seems much simpler and more intuitive to explain this as a hypercorrection from what in the colloquial language (at least in my dialect) is a near-universal use of "John and me" as the subject of a sentence.

[Richard W]

* Using subject forms in conjunctions in object position is frequent. ("He's talking to John and I tomorrow.")

It seems much simpler and more intuitive to explain this as a hypercorrection from what in the colloquial language (at least in my dialect) is a near-universal use of "John and me" as the subject of a sentence.

Wouldn't the subject more naturally be "me and John"? The injunction always primarily struck me as being about not putting oneself first.

[zompist]

* Using subject forms in conjunctions in object position is frequent. ("He's talking to John and I tomorrow.")

It seems much simpler and more intuitive to explain this as a hypercorrection from what in the colloquial language (at least in my dialect) is a near-universal use of "John and me" as the subject of a sentence.

Of course it's a hypercorrection, but you can't just define "the colloquial language" to be your dialect!

[abahot]

I’m assuming from my experience (correct me if I’m wrong) that in most colloquial dialects of English, “subject pronouns” in the object of a sentence exist solely because of hypercorrection, which exists in the first place because they aren’t consistently used in the subject either. I was using my own dialect as an example.

[abahot]

Wouldn't the subject more naturally be "me and John"? The injunction always primarily struck me as being about not putting oneself first.

Yes, sorry. That’s what I meant.

[zompist]

I’m assuming from my experience (correct me if I’m wrong) that in most colloquial dialects of English, “subject pronouns” in the object of a sentence exist solely because of hypercorrection, which exists in the first place because they aren’t consistently used in the subject either. I was using my own dialect as an example.

Using your own dialect is fine, but generalizing to "English" is tricky! I think the safer statement is that English speakers are following several conflicting rules on pronouns in conjunctions... sometimes a single speaker can do so.

Also, "hypercorrection" is a historical explanation, but something can be a hypercorrection and also part of someone's dialect... in fact, that's common as dirt.

[Travis B.]

I’m assuming from my experience (correct me if I’m wrong) that in most colloquial dialects of English, “subject pronouns” in the object of a sentence exist solely because of hypercorrection, which exists in the first place because they aren’t consistently used in the subject either. I was using my own dialect as an example.

Using your own dialect is fine, but generalizing to "English" is tricky! I think the safer statement is that English speakers are following several conflicting rules on pronouns in conjunctions... sometimes a single speaker can do so.

Also, "hypercorrection" is a historical explanation, but something can be a hypercorrection and also part of someone's dialect... in fact, that's common as dirt.

In a way, it is prescriptivist to dismiss "X and I" as a non-subject as a mere hypercorrection, as if its origin as such makes it less valid. That said, I would have to say that personally I tend to consciously avoid it because it is neither truly formal nor truly colloquial, but rather a form that was adopted to make one sound more "correct" while not actually being formally "correct"; I would not avoid it were it truly formal or truly colloquial.

[Vardelm]

I hear all of the combinations here. My own usage:

"John and I are talking tomorrow."
"He's talking to me and John tomorrow." (This feels more natural than the below for some reason.)
"He's talking to John and me tomorrow."

I frequently hear "Me and John are talking tomorrow", which personally drives me insane, right behind seeing people type "would of" and always using "seen" instead of "saw".

Wouldn't the subject more naturally be "me and John"? The injunction always primarily struck me as being about not putting oneself first.

This injunction is what I've understood as well, which is why "me and John" is doubly annoying to me. At the same time, note my 2nd example above that "me and John" feels more natural in the object position. In my area, I hear both "John and me" and "me and John" regularly.