# between the students and I/me



## rafakarmona

Hello, I'm trying to prepare a speech for an oral presentation and I don't know whether I have to use me or I. The specific sentence is: 
(...) within "what to listen to and how to listen to it" students listen to authentic audio material but also through the interaction between the students and "me".
Thank you beforehand.


----------



## pubman

Diría "the students and myself"


----------



## donbill

rafakarmona said:


> Hello, I'm trying to prepare a speech for an oral presentation and I don't know whether I have to use me or I. The specific sentence is:
> (...) within "what to listen to and how to listen to it" students listen to authentic audio material but also through the interaction between the students and "me".
> Thank you beforehand.



Between the students and me. (I must disagree with my esteemed friend pubman. I would not use 'myself'.)


----------



## pubman

donbill said:


> Between the students and me. (I must disagree with my esteemed friend pubman. I would not use 'myself'.)


 

Thank you donbill, it's nice to be esteemed


----------



## Cayenarama

Gramaticalmente 'me' es correcto. Estoy seguro que noventa por ciento de los 'nativos' diríamos 'myself' que creo que también es correcto.


----------



## Cayenarama

De todas formas lo que me preocuparía más es la palabra 'through'. 
'The students learn through the use of authentic....AND also'.
También faltaría un 'not only' para que valga tu 'but'. 
Cuidadín


----------



## rafakarmona

Thank you all very much! You're always fantastic! ^.^


----------



## FromPA

Cayenarama said:


> Gramaticalmente 'me' es correcto. Estoy seguro que noventa por ciento de los 'nativos' diríamos 'myself' que creo que también es correcto.


 
More people would say "I" than "myself," and that would be wrong too.  I think people say "myself" because they know "I" is wrong, but they don't like the sound of "me," so they avoid the choice by using the reflexive, but there's nothing reflexive about the phrase at all.


----------



## Cayenarama

This is true. Funny old language, English. I think the reflexives have been accepting extra responsibilities for a long time now. They sometimes like to be in there with the pronouns
e.g. 'Me, Myself, I' - Joan Armatrading.
However I, myself, have long since overcome any reticence in the use of the word 'me'.


----------



## donbill

pubman said:


> Thank you donbill, it's nice to be esteemed


My reason for using 'me' and not 'myself' in this context has to do with reserving 'myself' for purely reflexive use:

I cut myself shaving.
I treated myself to a good dinner last night.
etc.

As object of a preposition, I would reserve 'myself' for contexts such as:

I am not happy with myself.
I need to listen to myself.
etc.

And, pubman, indeed I do think you are un _caballero a carta cabal_.


----------



## lasraschen

I would say "I."  (Although, apparently, that's wrong since "my students and I" is not the subject.)  "Me" would be my second choice.  I also reserve "myself" for reflexive situations.  Although, it seems like people are using "myself" more and more in situations it doesn't belong.  Oh, English.  I am so thankful I didn't have to "learn" it.


----------



## donbill

lasraschen said:


> I would say "I."  (Although, apparently, that's wrong since "my students and I" is not the subject.)  "Me" would be my second choice.  I also reserve "myself" for reflexive situations.  Although, it seems like people are using "myself" more and more in situations it doesn't belong.  Oh, English.  I am so thankful I didn't have to "learn" it.



It is grammatically incorrect to say "between my students and I". I would not use it under any circumstance. (I'll admit, however, that we hear it often.)


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Rafakarmona, the problem (as demonstrated by the incorrect response from lasraschen above) is that many English speakers mistakenly think that it is somehow "wrong" to have a compound object of a preposition. They therefore change pronouns in compound objects to the nominative case -- but this is not correct. If you have a pronoun functioning as the object of a preposition, then it must be in the objective case, regardless of whether it is part of a compound or not:

This is a gift from I. 
This is a gift *from* *me*.

This is a gift from John and I. 
This is a gift *from* John and *me*.

Since "between" is a preposition, the pronouns that follow it are objects of a preposition, and must be in objective case:
The teacher stood between he and I.
This teacer stood *between him* and *me*.


----------



## rafakarmona

Thank you GreenWhiteBlue! I often speak with people from Liverpool and, to be honest, I've heard several versions of this topic. So that when I try to put it into practice I don't really know the way it should be used properly.
I'll use your explanation in the future when teaching your language! 
Thank you very much indeed!


----------



## More od Solzi

It is I.
It's me.


----------



## donbill

More od Solzi said:


> It is I.
> It's me.



Grammatically correct, but _nobody_ says it!


----------



## Cayenarama

Grammatically correct is a good starting point. This kid from Macedonia seems to know some stuff. It's about time someone took us back to basics. I'm sorry but More od Solzi is right. 
2+3=5 
is the same as 5=2+3.
God is love = Love is God etc
Grammatically speaking there can never be any object of 'to be'.


----------



## donbill

Cayenarama said:


> Grammatically correct is a good starting point. This kid from Macedonia seems to know some stuff. It's about time someone took us back to basics. I'm sorry but More od Solzi is right.
> 2+3=5
> is the same as 5=2+3.
> God is love = Love is God etc
> Grammatically speaking there can never be any object of 'to be'.



I take no issue with the correctness. I repeat: (virtually) nobody says 'it is I'.

God is love = Love is God.

It is I = I is it  (oops!)

Edit: There are times that I would say 'it is I'. _It is I who prefers to say 'it's me' when I answer the question 'who is it?'._ So, I concede the point: there are times when it's okay. But if you knock at my door, and if I say 'who is it?', would you really answer 'it is I, Cayenarama'?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Cayenarama said:


> God is love = Love is God etc
> Grammatically speaking there can never be any object of 'to be'.


 
While "to be" is not a transitive verb, your analysis is very incorrect.  In English, "God is Love" certainly does _*not*_ mean the same thing as "Love is God"!!!!!!


----------



## inib

(QUOTE "God is Love" certainly does _*not*_ mean the same thing as "Love is God"!!!!!! QUOTE)
Really? They both mean that God and Love are the same thing, just the emphasis is changed, in my opinion.


----------



## blasita

Just some information. I hope it´s useful.

Some pronoun forms may be used in a hypercorrect way (hypercorrect forms occur when a speaker chooses a highly formal option and uses it universally, without reference to context.)

_Between you and I, he keeps making mistakes while driving._  (Hypercorrect form)

_Between you and me, he keeps making mistakes while driving._  (Preferred, *following the rule of preposition ´between´+ object pronoun*)

The examples are from ´Cambridge Grammar of English´ (R. Carter & M. McCarthy). And I´d say between X and _me_ (and ´me´is grammatically correct here), but Rafa, I´m a non-native speaker.

Un saludo a todos.

PS Donbill, de acuerdo, caballero a carta cabal (bonita y literaria expresión), como tú; Dios, hacía que no oía esta expresión casi los años que tengo.


----------



## donbill

inib said:


> (QUOTE "God is Love" certainly does _*not*_ mean the same thing as "Love is God"!!!!!! QUOTE)
> Really? They both mean that God and Love are the same thing, just the emphasis is changed, in my opinion.




This is interesting, inib, but I fear that it takes us far from the original post. (That rarely happens at the forum .) I see GreenWhiteBlue's point. We frequently think of the verb _to be_ as a kind of 'equals sign' (=), but it isn't necessarily so.

_John is a professor_ is not really the same as _A professor is John_, unless we're just playing with word order. I suppose the same holds true for Spanish: _Juan es profesor_ doesn't mean _(Un) profesor es Juan_. It seems to me that in both Spanish and English we are equating an individual with a category if we say that each of the sentences means the same. But, it's probably just some more of our grammatical hair-splitting. It's entertaining, and it makes us think--and that's not bad!

Saludos


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> PS Donbill, de acuerdo, caballero a carta cabal (bonita y literaria expresión), como tú; Dios, hacía que no oía esta expresión casi los años que tengo.



No te preocupes, blasita. La expresión no es parte de mi diario hablar. Sentí la necesedad de expresarme de una forma 'bonita y literaria' para honrar al amigo pubman. Puede ser que yo recuerde la expresión de otra vida. Ah, sí, ahora recuerdo: 'a la exida de Bivar ovimos* la corneia diestra.....'

(*un pequeño cambio: es_ ovieron_ en el texto original.)


----------



## capitas

It is me = I am =¿ it is I? Very odd.

And obviously, "Dogs are killers" is not the same as "Killers are dogs"
It is just a matter of aristotelic/aristotelian logic.


----------



## blasita

> No te preocupes, blasita. La expresión no es parte de mi diario hablar. Sentí la necesidad de expresarme de una forma 'bonita y literaria' para honrar al amigo pubman. Puede ser que yo recuerde la expresión de otra vida. Ah, sí, ahora recuerdo: 'a la exida de Bivar ovimos* la corneia diestra.....'
> 
> (*un pequeño cambio: es ovieron en el texto original.)



Siento si se me he expresado mal; yo solamente intentaba decir que estaba de acuerdo con respecto a lo que decías de pubman, y además que esto es más que cierto sobre ti. Mi error ha sido no recordar que sabes mucho más español que yo .

Un saludo cordial.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Mi error ha sido no recordar que sabes mucho más español que yo .
> 
> Un saludo cordial.



¡Ni siquiera en mis sueños!


----------



## inib

capitas said:


> It is me = I am =¿ it is I? Very odd.
> 
> And obviously, "Dogs are killers" is not the same as "Killers are dogs"
> It is just a matter of aristotelic/aristotelian logic.


 I admit defeat with your doggie example. I could still add something, but it would be even further off topic and I haven't got time for another PM Maybe if I'm bored tomorrow...


----------



## More od Solzi

It's me Tarzan.


----------



## donbill

More od Solzi said:


> It's me Tarzan.



Much too correct!

"Me, Tarzan."


----------

