ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Will, I think only #2 is actually correct (for exactly the reason you say: "...than I am"), but everyone uses #1 colloquially so it's what you expect to hear.

But if I said, "You are bigger than me," that would be correct, no?

No. Just very, very common.

I mean, it's acceptable in familiar/casual use, and frankly prob 92% of the population doesn't even notice or care, and using correct grammar like "...than I" is what gets you made fun of where I come from. But the casual version isn't "correct".

I'm just confused, I guess, as to why there appears to be no object of the sentence. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. eg. "He is smarter than I" = He (subject) and I (subject)?!

I swear, I'm not usually this dumb. Seriously! I just occasionally can't wrap my head around something simple. It's happening to my vocabulary, too... I had to log onto google talk just to bug my friend because I couldn't remember the word "ostracize." All I could think of was "shun," and even "alienate" would have worked in the context. I am actually getting stupider!

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000025.htm

Yes, you're comparing two subjects, he and I

Aw, that is a fantastic link! Thanks! That's what I was trying to communicate-- that using "i" and "me" are both grammatically correct but just mean very different things in some cases... just couldn't think of the cases, I suppose.

objects only come in if the subject is affecting something, or doing something to something

If you said "He is a dog", "dog" is not an object, because it's just restating what the subject is (dog is a "predicate nominative" in that sentence if I'm not mistaken, eek)

Wait, so if I said "He is taller than her," could that theoretically be grammatically sound (but mean "he is more tall than he is her")? It makes no sense, but is kind of hilarious.

Also, did I ever say that I LOVE LOVE LOVE this thread? You guys are awesome.

why do you think "taller" would call for difft grammar than "bigger"??

I don't think that... I am just woefully inconsistent w/ my examples

you're actually very consistent!

"you are a bigger man than i"
"you are bigger than i"
"he is taller than she"

all exactly the same construction and grammar

ok something that is driving me a bit mad:

the use of "something related" - with hyphen or without? i don't know, i mean, i know that grammatically it's correct to say, e.g., "automobile-related products" and "these products are automobile related" - but is the former ever correct without the hypen? automobile related products? hrm. gotta make a decision...

and then there's the old issue of "well-trained dogs" which to me is part of this but what, is different b/c well is an adverb? hyphens agh

i'd say hyphens in both - it's when adverbs have an "ly" at the end that you forgo the hyphen i believe though i'm sure someone will be along to tell me exactly why that's wrong

i abide by the "ly" rule
i have to stick with my grammar guns and take my office grammar power and use it for the good of all. or at least for the good of 4-colour brochures.

Hyphens are tricky because there's not a whole lot of hard and fast rules about them. For instance, should it be "health care industry" or "health-care industry"? In a case like that, where "health care" is understood as a single term, my instinct is usually to hyphenate. However, some people will argue that it should be left open for the exact same reason, i.e., the words "health" and "care" are linked so strongly that no one is likely to be confused. At that point, it's kind of an aesthetic decision. (And to make the point moot, Bryan Garner tells me in today's Usage Tip of the Day that "healthcare" -- one word -- is inevitable.)

But in the case of "automobile-related," my company's stylebook says that compounds formed by a noun plus a past participle are almost always hyphenated. (Some have even turned into single words, like "homemade" or "airborne.")

Same goes for most compounds that include adverbs not ending in "-ly." The "-ly" ending gets dispensation because it presents no confusion whatsoever that it's an adverb. In the case of "well-trained dog," however, taking out the hyphen presents the possibility that you're talking about a trained dog that is well. I should also add that this rule only applies when the compound is before a noun. If you were to say that "the dog is well trained," then the hyphen is unnecessary.

I don't know how helpful that is, since a lot of times my solution to hyphen-related queries is to just consult the stylebook.

i'm making the style guide!

but yes that is helpful

AP seems to want to avoid hyphens whenever possible, but I think you def. need it in "automobile-related products" and "well-trained dog."

I would write "a well-trained dog" but "the dog is well trained".

(on the grounds that I'm not answering "what kind of dog is it?", but telling the reader that the dog was trained well). Do people agree?

Somebody tell me about the word "whilst." It seems everyone uses it in the UK, and nobody uses it in the US... is i actually just a synonym for "while," or are there cases where one's correct to use and one isn't?

I suppose I could look this up, but I figure some folks here will have more insight.

I agree, Alba. I mentioned that a few posts up.

I would write "a well-trained dog" but "the dog is well trained".

Yes, this is the basic/common use of hyphens for compound modifiers -- e.g., if we still always used "health care" as two words, we'd talk about "the expenses of health care" but also "health-care expenses" ...

... this is sometimes a problem in my work, because if you change one adjective use to be hyphenated, non-editors down the line will often think "oh, this word is supposed to be hyphenated -- and look, they missed all these other instances, we'd better change that!"

ugh i know...

also WHILST use by non-britishes makes me want to say asshole things like 'faagg' all idiocracy style. reminds me of highschool drama students

Somebody tell me about the word "whilst." It seems everyone uses it in the UK, and nobody uses it in the US... is i actually just a synonym for "while," or are there cases where one's correct to use and one isn't?

They mean exactly the same thing and can be used interchangeably, 'whilst' is just more formal.

where is the thread for people who are driven crazy by writing, editing, re-writing, re-editing, re-writing etc etc press releases

because i'm being driven crazy

less crazy now

i have a question for you guys about something that has always bothered me: the way people use the word "choice". now if i'm not mistaken a choice is a decision in front of somebody where several options are available. yet you constantly hear that "we have two choices" -- for instance, between a blue couch and a white couch. to me, that's ONE choice. am i right?

whoa
i'm pretty tired so this is kind of blowing my mind
what if one of the couches is in 1950 and we accidently got sent back in time and no i am not going to make the joke i was about to make

so what do you call a choice btwn to things then?

two things

tracer, 'choice' has two meanings there:

1) 'choice' meaning 'a decision'
2) 'choice' meaning 'an option' (out of several)

so you can make a choice between two choices

what i am saying is that the second definition is specious

a choice between two things is a choice, not two choices

1: the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
2: power of choosing : option <you have no choice>
3 a: the best part : cream b: a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>
4: a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>
5: care in selecting
6: a grade of meat between prime and good

besides "a choice of two choices" would never be said, because it highlights exactly the weird slippage that bothers me so

ohhh

when the choice (as in 4) still exists - i.e. you have a choice between the white couch and the blue couch - they have NOT BEEN CHOSEN YET, therefore are not eligible for defn 3b!

The OED has an 1871 citation for this meaning (which is still pretty recent in the history of the word, obviously, but less so than I'd begun to think from enjoying the righteous disdain of your posts).

Surprised to see that the sense of "the preferable part of anything, the 'pick', 'flower', élite" is so much older (1494 citation).

I had never thought about this. Maybe it springs from people saying "Good choice!", which originally meant "Good decision", but slipped in people's minds and became attached to the actual thing they chose.

Now I'm thinking about it, the OED says, "8. An ALTERNATIVE: used both in the exact and the loose senses of that word, i.e. of the terms between which one may choose, or a term which may be chosen."

"Used" seems somewhat redundant in a dictionary, and then there's "loose"; "well, we must be descriptivist, but darling, isn't it vulgar?"

"when the choice (as in 4) still exists - i.e. you have a choice between the white couch and the blue couch - they have NOT BEEN CHOSEN YET, therefore are not eligible for defn 3b!"

you can talk about them as potential choices.

i.e. "that might make a good choice" yes; "which choice should we go for" no

ahh ok now i am with you

high fives all around!

Hmm, I don't know about that. "You have two choices: you can either do x or do y." Is that use of "choice" wrong there, since the choice has yet to be taken? And yet it sounds OK to me...

But you hear old posh waiters in bowties saying "Excellent choice, sir," and if anyone would know the correct usage, they would.