What I mean is that "for you and I" is not replacing "for you and me". It's only a flash ... "for you and I" because they are confusing it with the rule of "He and I went to the store". Then my question

/irony meter on George Bush is a truly great President. Just read his speeches and see how he has moved US foreign policy ... for this dictator and resisting desperate attempts by the French, Germans and Russian to keep him in power./irony meter

MO> Certainly there are grammatical utterances that juxtapose MO> "the" and "more"; the point is that you can't use "the more" MO> in the same sense that you'd use "the car" or "the

Of course, idiolects themselves are all rule-based. If an American were to consistently say "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital," even though his speech otherwise resembled Standard American English, he would be following

Aaron has already said that "those" is formal speech and "the ones", for example, is informal, as in "I want the ones over there" instead of "I want those". I did? When? I certainly don't believe

So yes, sounding "la-di-da" that is, sounding pretentious in a rock band ... depends upon what sort of dialect the band ordinarily uses. Aaron has already said that "those" is formal speech and "the ones", for

"Raymond S. Wise" (Email Removed) wrote on 30 Nov 2003: So yes, sounding "la-di-da" that is, sounding pretentious in a rock band is a bad thing. "Those" instead of "them" doesn't sound particularly

Don't you want those chips? All the more for me, then. And therein lies the fallacy of trying to explain the language in terms of nouns, something that acts like a noun, or whatever. What part of speech any given word is, is determined by its

'If you do that any more I'll punch you, OK?' is common in my region. I would take that as the other sort of "any" plus "more," like "some more." "If you feed that dog any more food, he'll

I think one thing that emerges clearly from all of ... a known rule being consulted, which is a false implication. I agree with you, and I think this is where Raymond Wise is totally wrong when he wants to ascribe anything like this to