# Forum Other Languages Germanic languages English  he is taller than...

## kamka

...than me? than I? than I am?
I got so confused, I've heard different versions from different people and I have no idea which one is correct anymore, although I have to admit that "than I" sounds pretty weird to me  ::

----------


## paulb

> ...than me? than I? than I am?
> I got so confused, I've heard different versions from different people and I have no idea which one is correct anymore, although I have to admit that "than I" sounds pretty weird to me

 "He is taller than me" is what most people say. "He is taller than I am" is also correct. 
Maybe some grammar book will have "He is taller than I", but no one says this. 
Just a word about contractions, even though you didn't ask. We almost always say "He's taller than me" unless we are being very formal for some reason. Also, you can NEVER end a sentence with that type of contraction. 
A: Who is taller, you or Fred?
B: He's. (incorrect) 
Here you MUST say "He is" or "Fred is" 
You CAN end a sentence with a negative contraction like isn't or can't.

----------


## kamka

thank you  ::  
and yes, I knew about the contractions at the end of the sentence, but thanks anyway  ::

----------


## paulb

> thank you  
> and yes, I knew about the contractions at the end of the sentence, but thanks anyway

 Lots of English learners have trouble with contractions, so I thought I'd add that in. Maybe someone else will learn something. I hope I didn't insult your intelligence.

----------


## kamka

> Lots of English learners have trouble with contractions, so I thought I'd add that in. Maybe someone else will learn something. I hope I didn't insult your intelligence.

 nah, not at all  ::  I'm greatful for any remarks concerning the English language, as I still have got soooo much to learn  :: 
Besides, I'm of the opinion that's it's better to repeat something too much, than too little, especially when it comes to grammar  ::  (ok, the sentence sounds clumsy, hope you understood what I meant nevertheless)

----------


## ZelyeUrsuli

People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar. 
"He is taller than me" grammatically makes no sense - but people use it all the time. In fact they use it more than the correct construction. 
The reason you use "I," as you do in most languages, is because the sentence is really "He is taller than I am." Often times it is shortened to "He is taller than I" - and for some reason people aren't used to saying that. 
In general, most people don't end a sentence with "I" or even use it unless it is the subject of the sentence. 
Good rule is to just complete the sentence. People will incorrectly but often say"He is a better singer than me" when they should say "he is a better singer than I." You are always safe to just say "he is a better singer than I am." 
Oh, something funny. I was watching TV and this dumb person said, "My sister and me went...oh, I mean: I and my sister went..." I guess the latter is a bit closer...

----------


## paulb

> People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar. 
> "He is taller than me" grammatically makes no sense - but people use it all the time. In fact they use it more than the correct construction. 
> The reason you use "I," as you do in most languages, is because the sentence is really "He is taller than I am." Often times it is shortened to "He is taller than I" - and for some reason people aren't used to saying that. 
> In general, most people don't end a sentence with "I" or even use it unless it is the subject of the sentence. 
> Good rule is to just complete the sentence. People will incorrectly but often say"He is a better singer than me" when they should say "he is a better singer than I." You are always safe to just say "he is a better singer than I am." 
> Oh, something funny. I was watching TV and this dumb person said, "My sister and me went...oh, I mean: I and my sister went..." I guess the latter is a bit closer...

 You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there are absolute rules for grammar aside from actual usage. If the forum readers want to learn English the way it is spoken by actual English speakers, then we'll have to ignore the "rules" from time to time. 
If someone, when speaking to an American, said "He is taller than I" it would sound funny because that is not common usage. If you add "am" at then end then it's fine, of course.

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> Originally Posted by ZelyeUrsuli  People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar.
> ..   You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there are absolute rules for grammar aside from actual usage. If the forum readers want to learn English the way it is spoken by actual English speakers, then we'll have to ignore the "rules" from time to time. 
> If someone, when speaking to an American, said "He is taller than I" it would sound funny because that is not common usage. If you add "am" at then end then it's fine, of course.

 Very true.  It's good to know the rules so that you know what you are doing if you have to break them, and break them you shall, at least from time to time. 
No one says "than I" unless they want to sound somewhat pretentious, or they don't mind being known as a grammar nazi.  It's the same with, "It is I," and similar constructions.  It may have been a hard and fast grammar rule in the past, but it doesn't sound "right" to talk that way, and it's not just an American thing, either -- it applies to all English speaking countries.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by ZelyeUrsuli  People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar. 
> "He is taller than me" grammatically makes no sense - but people use it all the time. In fact they use it more than the correct construction. 
> The reason you use "I," as you do in most languages, is because the sentence is really "He is taller than I am." Often times it is shortened to "He is taller than I" - and for some reason people aren't used to saying that. 
> In general, most people don't end a sentence with "I" or even use it unless it is the subject of the sentence. 
> Good rule is to just complete the sentence. People will incorrectly but often say"He is a better singer than me" when they should say "he is a better singer than I." You are always safe to just say "he is a better singer than I am." 
> Oh, something funny. I was watching TV and this dumb person said, "My sister and me went...oh, I mean: I and my sister went..." I guess the latter is a bit closer...   You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there are absolute rules for grammar aside from actual usage. If the forum readers want to learn English the way it is spoken by actual English speakers, then we'll have to ignore the "rules" from time to time. 
> If someone, when speaking to an American, said "He is taller than I" it would sound funny because that is not common usage. If you add "am" at then end then it's fine, of course.

 There are absolute grammar rules, but in everyday speech they are frequently broken, nevertheless they do exist. Languages are in a constant stage of evolution, so lots of grammar rules are outdated. One also has to remember that the way we look at society, class, and everything has changed dramatically in the past 100 years. Today being upper class / posh doesn't necessarily mean better, when in the past it did, therefore in the past speaking correctly was a sign of being a better person (socially). 
It is important for languages to have grammar rules, not to freeze the language in a set form, but it to prevent the language from changing too quickly. Imagine if teachers took the view: "Write what you want, say what you want, spell words the way you want, irrespective of the set rules". 
Kids would end up writing and spelling in lots of different ways, colloquial slang and such would develop to such a point, English (for example) would fraction and cease to exist as one language, as it is now. With grammar rules changes will still exist but at least some sort of uniformity remains. 
Anyway, in this context I've never said "He is taller than I", but I know that it is the "proper grammatical way" and I can write it, or could use it if I needed to.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by paulb        Originally Posted by ZelyeUrsuli  People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar.
> ..   You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there are absolute rules for grammar aside from actual usage. If the forum readers want to learn English the way it is spoken by actual English speakers, then we'll have to ignore the "rules" from time to time. 
> If someone, when speaking to an American, said "He is taller than I" it would sound funny because that is not common usage. If you add "am" at then end then it's fine, of course.   Very true.  It's good to know the rules so that you know what you are doing if you have to break them, and break them you shall, at least from time to time. 
> No one says "than I" unless they want to sound somewhat pretentious, or they don't mind being known as a grammar nazi.  It's the same with, "It is I," and similar constructions.  It may have been a hard and fast grammar rule in the past, but it doesn't sound "right" to talk that way, and it's not just an American thing, either -- it applies to all English speaking countries.

 Can people stop making huge generalisations please. I live in England, we invented English, by the way, and most people here do say "He is taller than me" like in America, but we do still have a lot of (generally) more upper class people who do say "than I" and you can't accuse them of being pretentious or a grammar Nazi just because their parents had the audacity to teach them, what is after all, the correct way to speak. You attack the extreme view that "everyone must speak 100% perfectly grammatical English" with the extreme view that "no one should use these rules and anyone who does is an idiot" and almost suggest that it is actually wrong to use them.

----------


## capecoddah

He is taller than me am...
Me went to the store... 
Think a complete sentence or partial.

----------


## xRoosterx

Fortunately for English-speaking Americans, we now have our own official variation on the language: American English. 
 So I can say 'he is taller than me' and still be grammatically correct? - Of course you can...in America.   ::   ::

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> Can people stop making huge generalisations please. I live in England, we invented English, by the way, and most people here do say "He is taller than me" like in America, but we do still have a lot of (generally) more upper class people who do say "than I" and you can't accuse them of being pretentious or a grammar Nazi just because their parents had the audacity to teach them, what is after all, the correct way to speak. You attack the extreme view that "everyone must speak 100% perfectly grammatical English" with the extreme view that "no one should use these rules and anyone who does is an idiot" and almost suggest that it is actually wrong to use them.

 Ooo, teddy's out the cot!

----------


## TATY

> Fortunately for English-speaking Americans, we now have our own official variation on the language: American English. 
>  So I can say 'he is taller than me' and still be grammatically correct? - Of course you can...in America.

 It's perfectably acceptable to say it in British English, all I was saying is just because it is now acceptable to say "He is taller than me" or "who did you see" it doesn't mean saying the old-fashioned "He is taller than I", or "whom did you see", are no longer acceptable.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  Can people stop making huge generalisations please. I live in England, we invented English, by the way, and most people here do say "He is taller than me" like in America, but we do still have a lot of (generally) more upper class people who do say "than I" and you can't accuse them of being pretentious or a grammar Nazi just because their parents had the audacity to teach them, what is after all, the correct way to speak. You attack the extreme view that "everyone must speak 100% perfectly grammatical English" with the extreme view that "no one should use these rules and anyone who does is an idiot" and almost suggest that it is actually wrong to use them.   Ooo, teddy's out the cot!

 Next time you are accusing someone of being a grammar Nazi, make sure it's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> Next time you are accusing someone of being a grammar Nazi, make sure it's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 Yes, ma'am!  May I have another? 
Look, I don't know what's got you so upset, but I can't believe that you read my post carefully and came to the conclusion that I was accusing anyone of anything.  In fact, I was sure that you quoted me by mistake, and really meant someone else.  For the record, I don't disagree with anything you've said.  However, I must ask you to please refrain from composing false quotations in your posts and attributing them to me.  It's bad netiquette. 
There, I split an infinitive, and I'm proud of it!

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  
> Next time you are accusing someone of being a grammar Nazi, make sure it's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.   Yes, ma'am!  May I have another? 
> Look, I don't know what's got you so upset, but I can't believe that you read my post carefully and came to the conclusion that I was accusing anyone of anything.  In fact, I was sure that you quoted me by mistake, and really meant someone else.  For the record, I don't disagree with anything you've said.  However, I must ask you to please refrain from composing false quotations in your posts and attributing them to me.  It's bad netiquette. 
> There, I split an infinitive, and I'm proud of it!

 You said this:   

> No one says "than I" unless they want to sound somewhat pretentious,* or they don't mind being known as a grammar nazi*. It's the same with, "It is I," and similar constructions. It may have been a hard and fast grammar rule in the past, but it doesn't sound "right" to talk that way, and it's not just an American thing, either -- *it applies to all English speaking countries*.

----------


## xRoosterx

I don't think grammar _nazi_ is the best term. After all, have you taken to ever reading Mein Kampf?   ::

----------


## ZelyeUrsuli

Grammar Nazi actually is the proper term  ::  We make light of such things to shield us from the past pain. 
Well, then. I guess I AM a pretentious, grammar Nazi - and American.  ::  
I mean, if you are going to learn the language, you may as well learn it the proper way. 
Otherwise there will be complete and utter chaos on our looseleaf paper. 
"Him better then me." Count the errors! 
P.S. I haven't said "looseleaf paper" in over four years!

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> Originally Posted by Matroskin Kot        Originally Posted by TATY    
> You said this:      
> 			
> 				No one says "than I" unless they want to sound somewhat pretentious,* or they don't mind being known as a grammar nazi*. It's the same with, "It is I," and similar constructions. It may have been a hard and fast grammar rule in the past, but it doesn't sound "right" to talk that way, and it's not just an American thing, either -- *it applies to all English speaking countries*.

 OK, I appear to have said that a person might "sound somewhat pretentious" and become "known as a grammar Nazi" if they make a point of saying "than I".  I'm not sure what you can find fault with.  I still think it's true.  Notice that _I didn't call anybody_ a grammar Nazi, or say that you _are_ pretentious if you do it -- just that you might be judged that way. 
Do you object to my generalization about "English speaking countries"?  You said yourself that it was true in Great Britain, as well, so what's the problem?  My point was that it wasn't a AmE/BrE issue, but that it was a general rule that applies most anywhere.  Is that not a fact?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Grammar Nazi actually is the proper term  We make light of such things to shield us from the past pain. 
> Well, then. I guess I AM a pretentious, grammar Nazi - and American.  
> I mean, if you are going to learn the language, you may as well learn it the proper way. 
> Otherwise there will be complete and utter chaos on our looseleaf paper. 
> "Him better then me." Count the errors! 
> P.S. I haven't said "looseleaf paper" in over four years!

 I would be careful where you write "Nazi", because it is easy to quote you like this:   

> I AM a [...] Nazi - and American.

   ::

----------


## xRoosterx

+1   ::

----------


## ZelyeUrsuli

I love creative editing. 
It's why I love marketing  ::  
At first, you think your movie received a terrible review: "This movie is horrendous. The best thing I can say is that I didn't actually kill myself while watching it. Truly, the movie is the worst I have ever seen." 
That becomes: 'This movie is...the best...I have ever seen.'   ::

----------


## paulb

Leaving all the rhetoric aside for a moment, let us consider a couple of things. 
1 There are grammar "rules". This is another way of saying that in many or most cases English and other languages follow predictable patterns which allow for the formation of novel utterances. 
2 There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained by calling these rules "absolute". There are a few rules which never have exceptions at all, but there is no reason to suppose that even those rules will never develop exceptions in the future while still allowing for meaningful communication. 
3 There is a well known discrepancy between the language of formal grammar and the language of common communication. This does NOT imply that speaking in vernacular English means total disregard for all rules and loss of communication. Certainly there are plenty of common expressions which are much more vague and ambiguous than carefully crafted academic language, but on the other hand academic language has its own ways of being ambiguous and/or misleading. 
4 There are grammar "mistakes", i.e. constructions running against the grammar of the grammar books, which are considered acceptable or normal within various populations. There are infinitely more potential mistakes which would always be considered mistakes. The goal is not to try to ape the grammar books as closely as possible, but to be able to communicate with people. It is the job of the grammar books to try to describe how native speakers do in fact communicate, not the reverse where it's the job of the native speakers to try to imitate the grammar books. Somehow English managed to get along before the advent of grammar books.

----------


## DDT

I have come across a number of English teachers lately and it seems that they are all to be considered "grammar nazis". They never accept the normal spoken form of English and try to pound out of me all my "mistakes". Like the rule about not putting "would" after "if".  I know so many native speakers who talk this way but it extremely frowned on to teach that in a class. 
eg: If I woulda' (have) known you were such a jerk, I would have kicked your ass yesterday.  
Apparently I am not allowed to teach that to anyone. Hmmmm...oh well!

----------


## paulb

Nice example  ::

----------


## TATY

> I have come across a number of English teachers lately and it seems that they are all to be considered "grammar nazis". They never accept the normal spoken form of English and try to pound out of me all my "mistakes". Like the rule about not putting "would" after "if".  I know so many native speakers who talk this way but it extremely frowned on to teach that in a class. 
> eg: If I woulda' (have) known you were such a jerk, I would have kicked your ass yesterday.  
> Apparently I am not allowed to teach that to anyone. Hmmmm...oh well!

 There's no apostrophe in "woulda".  :P

----------


## paulb

> Originally Posted by DDT  I have come across a number of English teachers lately and it seems that they are all to be considered "grammar nazis". They never accept the normal spoken form of English and try to pound out of me all my "mistakes". Like the rule about not putting "would" after "if".  I know so many native speakers who talk this way but it extremely frowned on to teach that in a class. 
> eg: If I woulda' (have) known you were such a jerk, I would have kicked your ass yesterday.  
> Apparently I am not allowed to teach that to anyone. Hmmmm...oh well!   There's not an apostrophe in "woulda".  :P

 Little known rule: using apostrophes to mark dropped sounds in reported colloquial speech. E.g. the ol' gray mare, I ain' gon' do it, come back again, sug' (short for sugar) etc.

----------


## TATY

> Leaving all the rhetoric aside for a moment, let us consider a couple of things. 
> 1 There are grammar "rules". This is another way of saying that in many or most cases English and other languages follow predictable patterns which allow for the formation of novel utterances. 
> 2 There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained by calling these rules "absolute". There are a few rules which never have exceptions at all, but there is no reason to suppose that even those rules will never develop exceptions in the future while still allowing for meaningful communication. 
> 3 There is a well known discrepancy between the language of formal grammar and the language of common communication. This does NOT imply that speaking in vernacular English means total disregard for all rules and loss of communication. Certainly there are plenty of common expressions which are much more vague and ambiguous than carefully crafted academic language, but on the other hand academic language has its own ways of being ambiguous and/or misleading. 
> 4 There are grammar "mistakes", i.e. constructions running against the grammar of the grammar books, which are considered acceptable or normal within various populations. There are infinitely more potential mistakes which would always be considered mistakes. The goal is not to try to ape the grammar books as closely as possible, but to be able to communicate with people. It is the job of the grammar books to try to describe how native speakers do in fact communicate, not the reverse where it's the job of the native speakers to try to imitate the grammar books. Somehow English managed to get along before the advent of grammar books.

 I agree with everyting you say, but when a foreigner is learning English and asks a question on what is the correct way to say something, I think we, as native speakers, should err on the side of caution and tell them the "textbook version", as, at the end of the day, they are probably going to have English exams, and they could be marked down for using incorrect grammar. 
My issue was with suggestions that if you do follow all grammar rules, you are trying to be pretentious, but some people were just taught like that.  
I think, foreigners learning English should learn a more formal, textbook style, and all the colloquialisms and such can be picked up when they are exposed to the everyday language. I have met a lot of foreigners in London who don't really know English that well, but still try and use lots of slang and colloquial expressions and stuff, and it just sounds really strange. The same thing happened in Russia with me; when I used Russian slang or mat, my Russian friends laughed at me.

----------


## ZelyeUrsuli

> Originally Posted by TATY        Originally Posted by DDT  I have come across a number of English teachers lately and it seems that they are all to be considered "grammar nazis". They never accept the normal spoken form of English and try to pound out of me all my "mistakes". Like the rule about not putting "would" after "if".  I know so many native speakers who talk this way but it extremely frowned on to teach that in a class. 
> eg: If I woulda' (have) known you were such a jerk, I would have kicked your ass yesterday.  
> Apparently I am not allowed to teach that to anyone. Hmmmm...oh well!   There's not an apostrophe in "woulda".  :P   Little known rule: using apostrophes to mark dropped sounds in reported colloquial speech. E.g. the ol' gray mare, I ain' gon' do it, come back again, sug' (short for sugar) etc.

 True. But there's still no apostrophe in the non-word "woulda." 
TATY: if you start mixing you get something like, "He ain't taller than I."

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY        Originally Posted by DDT  I have come across a number of English teachers lately and it seems that they are all to be considered "grammar nazis". They never accept the normal spoken form of English and try to pound out of me all my "mistakes". Like the rule about not putting "would" after "if".  I know so many native speakers who talk this way but it extremely frowned on to teach that in a class. 
> eg: If I woulda' (have) known you were such a jerk, I would have kicked your ass yesterday.  
> Apparently I am not allowed to teach that to anyone. Hmmmm...oh well!   There's not an apostrophe in "woulda".  :P   Little known rule: using apostrophes to mark dropped sounds in reported colloquial speech. E.g. the ol' gray mare, I ain' gon' do it, come back again, sug' (short for sugar) etc.

 It's not a little known rule. It's very common: 
Fish 'n' Chips. Afterall, the apostrophe is often used to indicate a dropped letter, e.g. don't (the apostrophe replaces the omitted O).  
But when people write the slang word "woulda" they don't use an apostrophe. If they don't know/can't be bothered to write "would have" do you really think they know about correct apostrophe usage?

----------


## xRoosterx

I have been in America for 18 years and typically the people who correct your grammar in conversational speech 
are  .

----------


## Lampada

> I have been in America for 18 years and typically the people who correct your grammar in conversational speech 
> are  .

 А как бы ты предпочёл узнать об ошибках в твоей речи?

----------


## xRoosterx

что это значит, совсем? 
There is a large chasm of difference in written and spoken speech. You inevitably shorten words and disobey proper grammar 'laws' when your trying to get your point across quickly.

----------


## Lesleyp

> что это значит, совсем? 
> There is a large chasm of difference in written and spoken speech. You inevitably shorten words and disobey proper grammar 'laws' when your trying to get your point across quickly.

 Absolutely!  And don't forget regional differences.  UK conversational (spoken) English is sometimes almost as difficult for an English Canadian to understand as it is for someone with little English experience.  And don't even get me started on Newfoundland.  I'm lost there.  Completely.  I might as well be in Quebec trying to muddle through with my grade school French.  
It's more than accent.  Phrases and words are different or have different context meanings, and/or muddled with local slang.   
And then there is American English.  They use words or phrases that we don't and vice versa. 
When learning English for general communication rather than formal business purposes, I would recommend conversational learning, as opposed to formal ESL.    
As for correcting someone-  I never correct anyone's speech, unless told ahead that they wish it.  To me that seems very rude.  Especially if I understand their intention.  I've heard that English is hard to learn (although I think Russian is difficult - I am struggling).  I think I need to learn how to think in Russian instead of just trying to translate my English thought into Russian words.  Hmmmm....

----------


## Lesleyp

> Originally Posted by paulb        Originally Posted by ZelyeUrsuli  People generally don't say "He is taller than I" because they have poor grammar.
> ..   You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there are absolute rules for grammar aside from actual usage. If the forum readers want to learn English the way it is spoken by actual English speakers, then we'll have to ignore the "rules" from time to time. 
> If someone, when speaking to an American, said "He is taller than I" it would sound funny because that is not common usage. If you add "am" at then end then it's fine, of course.   Very true.  It's good to know the rules so that you know what you are doing if you have to break them, and break them you shall, at least from time to time. 
> No one says "than I" unless they want to sound somewhat pretentious, or they don't mind being known as a grammar nazi.  It's the same with, "It is I," and similar constructions.  It may have been a hard and fast grammar rule in the past, but it doesn't sound "right" to talk that way, and it's not just an American thing, either -- it applies to all English speaking countries.

 Well put!

----------


## Lesleyp

> Grammar Nazi actually is the proper term  We make light of such things to shield us from the past pain. 
> Well, then. I guess I AM a pretentious, grammar Nazi - and American.  
> I mean, if you are going to learn the language, you may as well learn it the proper way. 
> Otherwise there will be complete and utter chaos on our looseleaf paper. 
> "Him better then me." Count the errors! 
> P.S. I haven't said "looseleaf paper" in over four years!

 LMAO  ::   
Actually, if you're using "then" in reference to a time frame....ah never mind!

----------


## xRoosterx

Thinking in a language will inevitably come with time. I'll step outside and immediately think to myself 'Сейчас холодно.' or every time I'll say something and think, 'wonder what that is по-русски.  (Corrected. L.)

----------


## Zaya

> по-русск*и*.

 Четвёртый.

----------


## Lesleyp

> Thinking in a language will inevitably come with time. I'll step outside and immediately think to myself 'Сейчас холодно.' or every time I'll say something and think, 'wonder what that is по-русски.

 Wow!  I hope so!  I know a little French (very little) but still have to think in English as I find and say the right French word or phrase.   
Maybe I should just learn how to shrug in other languages?   ::   (That was a joke by the way- in case it didn't translate well)

----------

