Talk:I (pronoun)

"Orthography"

"In orthography, this pronoun is comparable to proper nouns;" Yeah, well, in grammar it isn't. You neither write "I's" nor "My" but "my". So no proper noun here. I don't find the analogy very convincing or helpful. But then English is not my first language so perhaps I'm missing something? --Mudd1 10:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. You may have given the protean word "in" a more typical meaning than applies here. ("In [its] orthography..." or "As far as its orthgraphy is concerned ...".) And does your native language have a word that sounds like a cognate of "orthography", and means "correct language"?

To me, in context, what you quote means

To the extent that we are considering specifically how the word I is written, it is like a proper noun in being capitalized, even when not the first word of a sentence (as in "I like pie! Yes, pie is something I like.") or an important part of the title of a work (as in (i guess) About her Eyes, and How I Fell in Love with Her).

But i would not have chosen the word "orthography", bcz normally, i would expect it to refer to the relationship between pronunciation and spelling (even tho i can imagine why someone may else use it to address casing). In any case, IMO, orthography ("writing correctly") is distinct from grammar, which is about rules that are true of formal language, whether written or oral, while strictly, i consider orthography to apply only to the relationship between speech and writing.
Is it really "comparable"? [shrug] If so, only in its casing behavior.
--Jerzy•t 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, slow-moving thread ;) My native language has indeed the word "Orthographie" which means "correct spelling". And I see how that sentence that now seems to have disappeared could have been interpreted differently in the way you explained. However, it then boiled down to "'I' is always capitalized as are proper nouns" which would mean that it was a very complicated sentence to say a pretty trivial thing. It's good that it's gone IMHO. --Mudd1 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Casing

hm..no comment on why "I" is capitalized? that is poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.173.248 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007

• Indeed. I don't capitalize it, but i'm glad to finally know why everyone else does.
  --Jerzy•t 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  
• It is just a grammar term i suppose. But I don't really know. 87.113.94.182 (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In latin languages, uppercasing the makes the person appear egocentric. In English, lowercasing this pronoun makes seem that the person has low self-esteem. So are latin-speakers low self steem persons or are english speakers egocentric? Is English the unique language in the world that capitalizes the singular first person not (I am not sure, but i believe that German capitalizes other personal pronouns)not cpaitalizing any other person? As a latin language speaker, I can get on my head an stereotypic image of egocentrism of english native speakers ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.102.129 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In German, only the formal second person "Sie" is capitalized, but that's simply to distinguish it from the third person plural form "sie", which is all the same. However, some people capitalize the informal second person "du" in letters, but that would be wrong anywhere else. I agree that it shouldn't be interpreted too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letkhfan (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See here for a thorough explanation. Even if we cannot cite this, we can cite Etymonline, or the Oxford English Dictionary directly (from which Etymonline usually sources its info, at least in part). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gibberish?

"me wouldn't believe all you read"? What's that supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.194.50 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking of uncertain meaning, why is your message here? If the quoted part was in the article, i take it for sarcastic skepticism, and assume it's been removed.
  --Jerzy•t 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  

Yes, that's the word! Most of the explanations about the capitalization of 'I' are indeed gibberish, more like some highly unscientific essay than valid encyclopaedic content. 89.231.116.65 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's not clear with the mutation of the pronunciation.

ic [ik] ---> i [i] ---> I [i] --?--> I [ai]

If you use the everyday word [ik] or [i], how can you all at once begin to say [ai] ?
-- 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.223.63 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 & modified by 68.192.202.163 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009

• "[A]ll at once"? Just bcz the further intermediate stages are unknown to us (or perhaps have not even been inferred to all experts' satisfaction) does not imply one way one day and another the next. In fact, it probably took several generations, and may have been driven by changes in other words that would make this change logical to linguists; go read abt umlaut for an AFAIK unrelated (but suggestive) mutation, if you don't want to do yourself the research the article needs.
  --Jerzy•t 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  

The relevant sound change here is the Great Vowel Shift. The modern pronunciation /aɪ/ goes back to Middle English /iː/, hence the spelling. The direct Old English predecessor is probably ih, a variant of ic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

mohit upadhyay

Mohit upadhyay is one man who wants to take a lot of knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.8.177 (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I shan't for the moment quibble about distinctions between graffitti and vandalism, but just say that this talk page is for discussion of the accompanying article and that no one should restore this discussion section to its former font-size without explaining how it can contribute to improvement of that article on the English pronoun I. I'm afraid my erring on the side of caution has delayed its eventual fade off this page and into the discussion archive, so anyone who can imagine a reason why it should be treated as having some value/legitimacy here should speak up before i look into whether expedited archiving (perhaps w/o explicit consensus) of apparently worthless long-standing article-talk-page contribs is an accepted practice.
  --Jerzy•t 23:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  

Me as a subject

I question the description on a few issues.

• Are there not dialects which use me as the nominal form?
• " the roles of "I" and "me" are sometimes switched when the pronoun is used with a conjunction, as in Me and Bob are the targets of their remarks and Their remarks are targeting Bob and I."

I do not think that "switched" describes the real situation. Rather, that there is a colloquial use of nominal me, appearing the me and Bob example and in it's me. And that there is a hypercorrection (after being told that "that's wrong") resulting in the Bob and I example. At least, the it's me usage should be mentioned.

• I recall hearing an explanation that the true contrast is not nominal:objective but marked:unmarked. That is that one calls attention to the use of the pronoun by using the marked form I rather than the ordinary form me. I have no reference for this, but if someone can verify that this has expert support, should it not be mentioned? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the OED and it reminded me of several uses of the form me where traditional grammar would expect I.

• woe is me
• as me/than me
• dear me
• me too/me neither
• me, I [an intensive]

Not to mention methinks.I And in answer to my question about dialect, there is Caribbean English. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree. "Switched" is the wrong word, though there are cases where the nominative/subjective is used instead of the accusative/objective in various varieties of English and there are other cases where the reverse is true. If we want to include this here, the section really needs a complete rewrite and needs to be much longer to explain the situation properly. We need to include differences between objects and complements, between explicit and implicit subjects, between simple and coordinate subjects/objects, and so on. However what needs to be written about I vs me also applies to other pronouns (and is not solely dependent on the level of formality). For example:

• "This is me trying to ride a camel."
• "That's probably him again."
• "This is us at the Mardi Gras."
• "That must be them [at the door]."

I may need some special treatment because for other pronouns the non-intuitive "rules" on complements never became even marginally acceptable to the extent that they possibly did with I.

But, on the whole, I think the issue should be mainly dealt with in a (possibly new) article on the use of case (linked to using {{Further}}. --Boson (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Many of those issues are treated by Objective case#English, and I have linked to that, as being uncontroversial. I think that makes all of the language that I questioned at best superfluous, and I intend to cut it back severely in the near future. That leaves the issues that are specific to me: Caribbean dialect and the idiomatic occurrences; which I'd like to be careful with TomS TDotO (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

amateur and incorrect presentation

This article spouts nonsense about "nominative" and "accusative". It needs to be rewritten in terms appropriate for a modern encyclopedia, for example as in this clear explanation from Practical English Usage by Michael Swan:

'In informal English, we use object forms not only as the objects of verbs and prepositions, but also in most other cases where the words do not come before verbs as their subjects. Object forms are common, for example, in one-word answers and after be:"Who said that?" - "(It was) him"; "Who's that?" -"(It's) me". In a more formal style, we often prefer to use subject form + verb where possible: "Who said that?" - "He did" (but not "he")'.

--Espoo (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It uses the terminology used in the cited source, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), more rigorously stressing the difference between form and function, which are conflated somewhat by subjective and objective - and Swan's attempt object form. As Huddleston and Payne explain "the nominative is not restricted to subject function ... and the accusative is likewise not restricted to object function." The differences in terminology are explained at some length in the explanatory footnote, and various terms are introduced at the beginning of the section "Case forms". --Boson (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

capitalized

At first it was lowercase, but it looked sad, so it began to be capitalized. Benjamin (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what the source says. No one rational says that the letter "i" looked sad, nor that "I" looked happier. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

"Look at it: i. How sad."Benjamin (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, please discuss before reverting. Benjamin (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: Nonsense is not left to fester in articles while people debate whether a single blog is sufficiently reliable to support a highly novel if not absurd statement. Please do not waste any more time on this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I see it has been restored. The statement in the source is apparently jocular, rather than encyclopedic. It should be removed. --Boson (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why nothing at all about „I” in philosophy, psychology and spirituality?

Why nothing at all about „I” in philosophy, psychology and spirituality?
2001:A61:1298:E001:1D63:9899:FB5B:6CA9 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those may be great things to add, and perhaps you should add them. First, though, consider whether they are really about the pronoun I or whether they are about the self or some other related idea.--Brett (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)