Jack Balkin and I on bloggingheads.

I think you mean "Jack Balkin and me on bloggingheads."
11.26.2008 12:34pm
No he doesn't. "Jack Balkin and I on bloggingheads" may be understood as an abbreviation for "This is [or 'Here is'] Jack Balkin and I on bloggingheads." A state-of-being verb ("is") takes a nominative pronoun ("I").
11.26.2008 2:29pm
You could go either way:
'Jack Balkin and I [are] on bloggingheads',
'[Here's] Jack Balkin and me on bloggingheads'.
11.26.2008 2:43pm
My first thought was with snaphappy, but billw is correct
11.26.2008 2:46pm
I agree generally with BillW, but when you follow this sentence with an embedded video, I think "Here is" is understood rather than "are." As for Hank, I suppose if it were just Eric, he could have said, "Here is I on Bloggingheads" or simply "I on Bloggingheads"? The latter also supports the reading of "Here's" as understood rather than "are."
11.26.2008 3:33pm
Wrong again. "Here's" is a contraction of "Here is." "Here is" and requires "I," as awkward as "Here is I" may sound. When someone says, "Who is it," even though most of us reply, "It's me," the grammatical reply is "It is I."
11.26.2008 3:36pm
Ignore the "and" in the second line of my previous response. Sorry for the typo.
11.26.2008 3:38pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Sorry, but the grammatically correct reply is the one that most people use. Rules of grammar are descriptive, not prescriptive. It is simply impossible for everyone to be wrong in their usage when they all agree. So, where the "rules" of grammar fail to accurately describe actual usage, it is the rules that are wrong, and not the usage.

Also, its a mistake to try to decide what the correct usage here by trying to shove the words into some assumed shorthand. The words don't have to be shorthand for anything. Or they could be a shorthand for an almost unlimited number of statements, some of which would require an I and others which would require a me. To me, the "I" sounds more awkward than "me" would sound.
11.26.2008 10:01pm
Benjamin Davis (mail):
This blogginheads is being posted in a number of places. I will respond on the torture aspect discussed.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions - their essence is a reconciliation between victims and oppressors within a given polity. For US torture, we simply do not have that.

9/11 style commissions - their essence is to hide the truth. Part of what is in the 9/11 report is information gotten by torture and, of course, we have the stories about the tapes of the Al-Qahtani torture that were not handed over to the commission because they did not use "the right magic words" for a dodgy administration.

criminal prosecution - the roles of having a public record as well as criminal prosecution are two hallmarks of this type of process. I have to disagree with Jack Balkin on this.

As to the irredentists on torture that may be in our midst, well they are like the segregationists - to hell with them. As to debates by two Americans about the merits of torture - those remind me of the merits of debates among white people about segregation. From the point of view of the tortured or the black person there really was not a question there. Not that those views would have any value since the essence of persons in both places in that period is that their human dignity is simply devalued by those with power over them. At least until countervailing forces externally of the Cold War period or today operate as well as internal countervailing forces through citizen action to move the political classes to action.
11.27.2008 12:09am
Curt Fischer:
Did someone seriously say that "Here is I" is grammatically correct? What a nutball. I see the same person recommends "It is I" in response to "Who is it." It's just further kookiness. I can recommend good English teachers if anyone is interested.
11.27.2008 12:17am
"It is I" sounds correct. But "Here am I" sounds better than,

Here is I. At any rate, I think the author is saying, 'Here is Jack and here am I'
11.27.2008 10:02am
Henry (mail):
Sara is right: it is "Here am I," not "Here is I." But it is "I" and not "me." And Duffy Pratt is right that "It's me" is acceptable in conversational English. But rules of grammar can be prescriptive as well as descriptive, and it would be wrong to use an objective pronoun with a state-of-being verb in formal writing. Of course, one is unlikely to need the phrase "It is I" in formal writing. But, in a legal brief, you should write, "The witness said that it was he," not "him."
11.27.2008 11:46am
Duffy Pratt (mail):
In some societies, grammatical rules take on a quasi-prescriptive status as a matter of class or rank. Sometimes the reverse happens. As a result, you get things like the King's English, a set of rules for how to speak in the most polite society. Conversely, if you hang around with people who speak street slang, you might need to adopt the grammar of that slang to fit in. So peer pressure can act as a kind of prescriptive force in grammar, just as it does in manners and customs.
11.27.2008 12:11pm
'Here's Jack and me' Does not sound correct. Since the author appears to mean: 'here we are . . .' , 'we' has to be replaced by 'Jack and I.' Sara is right, it appears to be, '[Here is] Jack Belkin and [here am] I . . .', ie. 'here we are . . .', not "us" (Jack and me).
12.1.2008 2:13pm
The other problem with the intro is the tendency to infer "Here's a video of ... " before the Bloggingheads, because anybody reading it knows it's a video, and that calls for the objective case.

There's simply so little going on in the sentence that mind automatically frames the pronoun as a potential subject or object.
12.2.2008 11:56pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.