Me, myself and I

People seem to struggle with "I", "me" and "myself". So which should you use in a particular context? I could go into the grammar of it but I would probably put off many of the people who need to be informed and most of the others would already know. So, let's keep it simple. We can do that because actually most English speakers know the answer, they just may not be asking the right question.

The confusion between "I" and "me" usually occurs when someone else is involved. For example:

"It was a good day for my wife and ??."

Should it be "I" or "me"? The simple test is to take the other person out of the sentence.

"It was a good day for ??."

Is it "I" or "me" now? Well unless you are from the West Country part of England, and I know some of my friends are, it would be:

"It was a good day for me."

Now put the other person back:

"It was a good day for my wife and me."

That was easy.

I think the cause of the confusion comes from another problem that was addressed for many of us either by our parents or in the early years of school: that when there is me and other people in a list, "I" should always come last, so:

"My wife and I had a great day."

Notice though, in this case, if I take the other person out of it:

"I had a great day."

You knew that. I'm tempted to mention grammar, but I'm resisting it.

"myself" is a useful word when you are doing something to yourself, like:

"I was washing myself."

It can also be used to emphasise that it is you, and not your helpers, who is doing it:

"I will clean up the rubbish myself."

And it can mean your normal state of being.

"I'll be back to myself in no time."

It doesn't sound right though to use "myself" when "I" or "me" will do instead.

"Come with Joe and me!"

"Joe and I went to the football match."

We all make little slips when we are talking and they usually pass without incident but when we are writing we should have time to think along these lines and correct ourselves.

Pet hates - language

This isn't your normal blog post because I intend to add to it over time expressions I hear which really annoy me. I'm not really the Mr Grumpy type. I don't necessarily react to neologisms or even to spelling or grammatical errors where they are clearly accidental and don't change the meaning of the message.

What's more I admit I am not immune myself and I am very wary of Muphry's Law. In fact, don't hesitate to pick me up on my errors; I'll try not to react badly but I will always take notice.

Here's the current state of the list.

• "One of the only..." as in "It is one of the only such bridges left in the country." This is meaningless. It may be "one of the few" or it may be "the only one"; make up your mind.
• "One year anniversary". I've dealt with this one before, here.
• "Me, myself and I". Which to use? See the dedicated article here.
• The greengrocer's apostrophe. This article is not exactly a how to. It's more of an anecdote.
• Here's another article on apostrophes, "its" and "it's" this time.
• Here's an article on my opinion on what is or is not plural.
• An article on my opinion on the difference between gender and sex and how that affects language. Please read the comment I left at the bottom of my own article; no offence is intended to anyone.

Would you trust this man?

I was in a pub recently and I noticed someone behind the bar was wearing a tee-shirt with pictures and writing on it. It somehow nagged at me subconsciously and I couldn't take my eyes off it but I couldn't work out why.

I realised quite quickly that it had on it a word with an extraneous apostrophe, which is enough reason for me to think "I wouldn't wear that" but there was more to it than that. What was it? Then I realised it was a tee-shirt advertising a tattoo artist which bore the word "Tattoo's". Now, I'm not on the lookout for a tattoo artist but if I were I think I would want one who could write better than that, or at least recognised the need for proof reading!

Anniversaries come once a year

I've had it up to here with anniversaries. No, I'm not saying I won't buy my beloved some token gift when the time comes round again, I mean I am fed up with the current fad for the tautology of the "n year anniversary". "Anniversary" comes from the Latin "anniversarius" meaning returning yearly. That in turn is made up of "annus" (year), "versus" (turned, or a turning) and the suffix "-arius" (connected with, pertaining to). There is no need to say "year" when using "anniversary".

Now we might sometimes use anniversary playfully in something like "six month anniversary", which is also wrong but I can accept it as an informal expression and there isn't really a good formal alternative. "Mensiversary" could work, derived from the Latin "mensis" (month) but it won't be widely understood.

A lesson from my student days

(Photo: Justin Grimes)

It's a very long time since I've written anything here. It's not because I haven't had the urge, just that the urge hasn't been strong enough to override the pressures of time and other activities.

Several times in the last few months I have related a story from my days as a student at Portsmouth Polytechnic (now University). This particular story involves the miners' strike of the 1980s. Please put aside whether you agree or disagree with the politics of the subject matter, my point is the principle of what happened. If you were a staunch supporter of the miners' strike and therefore have a difficulty with the story, then please replace it in your mind and in the story with some issue you don't agree with, or at least one you wouldn't support with money. I'm no football fan so for me, sponsoring a football game would work perfectly well as the replacement subject matter - see it doesn't even have to be political.

The Portsmouth Polytechnic Students' Union (PPSU) had an open meeting every week, on Wednesday if I remember correctly. It was never very well attended. I had been to one once, I think when someone attacked a club of which I was a member in one of the union newsletters. The small number of regulars were the usual suspects, political animals such as Socialist Workers and Conservative group members.

The first most members of the PPSU heard of the focus of this story was in just such a newsletter. It was reported that those assembled at one of these weekly meetings had voted to donate a decent-sized amount of money to a fund set up by or for the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) to support striking miners and their families. Someone who had been at the meeting was trying get the matter discussed again at the next week's meeting and invited people to come along to support his motion.

This article caused discussion to travel quickly around the student body and even normally apolitical members considered their position on this matter. The following Wednesday came quickly and on arriving at the Ents Hall (the union's entertainments venue) it was clear this was not a normal weekly meeting. The hall, not a small room, more often heaving to the sounds of the likes of Phil Lynott, George Melly, Misty in Roots or The Housemartins (just some I attended), was packed to overflowing.

The motion was read out and rather than counting hands in the usual way - doing so would be impossible, it was decided that there would be division as in the House of Commons. Those in favour of the donation (if I remember correctly) would leave by the main exit into the union building's lobby, and those against would leave by the fire exit into the car park. When we were all called back into the hall it was announced that the donation had been overturned.

Why do we need titles?

I wrote this post sometime in 2014. I have no idea why I didn't publish it at the time. The only reason I mention it is because it refers to events in the recent past, which are now at least 9 months old.

I am a member of a camera club. I won't mention which one because I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea: I like my camera club but there are some things about camera clubs in general that annoy me. I sometimes discuss them with other members but I want to set out one of them here, especially in the light of some things that happened in the last few days.

Up to about twelve years ago I was a member of another camera club, about a hundred miles away from my current one. Our established members were adamant that in our internal competitions the judge should not know the title of the photo he or she was judging. Photographs had titles but they were simply to allow the competition secretary to communicate with the photographer which image he wanted for some later competition.

This feeling was so entrenched that when we visited another club for an external competition and titles were read out, you could see our members' jaws drop.

Now, my current club takes what is maybe the more common approach, that the judge always knows the title of an image when judging it. I don't have a problem with a photograph having a title, as already mentioned, it's useful for identifying it if nothing else. I don't even have a problem in principle with judges knowing the titles, and I certainly don't object to titles being read out after images have been judged. My problem is that judges try to judge titles.

I have heard, and have some sympathy with the counter argument that a title may enhance the photograph. My gut instinct is that a photograph should stand up on its own in competition, but I still understand that counter. The problem is that I know there's more to why I feel strongly about the matter and I have difficulty explaining it. My aim here is to explore it from a number of different angles.

Types of title

Let's look first of all at the types of title an image may have. I won't manage to cover everything but I hope to mention the main types.

The factual title

This is pretty self-explanatory; it's a title which tells you what you're seeing, such as:

• The Eiffel Tower
• Ford Escort
• Blackbird
• Fox

This sort of title is pretty utilitarian. It can avoid confusion I suppose; the judge will know, for example that this is the The Eiffel Tower and not Blackpool Tower, but I ask whether it really matters. Shouldn't the image stand up on its own, whatever the subject actually is?

At the very least you would think such a title was harmless, but no such luck. The worst mistake you can make of course is to get the factual titles wrong and find the judge knows more than you; or worse, get it right and find the judge thinks he knows better than you. Was that car a Ford Prefect or a Ford Anglia?

But there are even more subtle issues. Sometimes the subject of the photograph doesn't have to be large in the frame, so you may have a very minimalist image with a long sweeping horizon broken only by the small silhouette of a horse, so you call the image "Horse", and the judge says your photo is more of a landscape than a picture of a horse. All you wanted to do was draw his attention to the point, in your mind, of the image; you might as well not have bothered.

There are several sub-types of the factual title. In some circumstances natural history photographs are expected to be given as a title the scientific name of the subject:

• Amanita Muscaria
• Eudyptes Pachyrynchus

This is certainly appropriate in a specialist competition but it will leave most generalist judges reeling.

Then there's the special type which is the studio portrait:

• Melanie
• Kate
• Jim

So, you're telling me it's the name of the model but is it really? It might be but then again it might not, and why should I care? This title is irrelevant.

The boasting title

Maybe this also should be a subset of the factual title but it has a special place in my heart. I'm not sure I can think of examples that do it justice:

• Prince Charles falling over
• The rarest bird in the world
• Taken while balancing on a one legged stool hanging over a precipice

What I'm getting at here is not that I mind knowing that you've caught a rare subject as in the first and second cases; yes, it's interesting but, and even more so with the third case, it doesn't enhance the photograph that it was so difficult. You can take the most difficult photograph in the world and it may not be as good as the next chap's quick snap with his camera phone taken from his living room window when the light just happened to be perfect.

I like to think that the best photographs are like magic tricks (ever seen Penn and Teller?), however easy or difficult they may be to achieve, the effort should not show in the final result, it should just impress the viewer by the emotion it gives them.

The poetic title - the "clever" title

I have to admit, I like this sort of thing myself, but it's really not safe to present to a judge. One that I actually used a long time ago was of a yacht on Lake Geneva under a leaden sky. Now, Lake Geneva's French name is Lac Léman. Léman. The meaning of the name is lost in the mists of time (Roman and Celtic) but you have to admit it sounds a bit like "lemon", which of course is limon in French but let's not allow that to get in the way. The leaden sky indicates that there's a storm on the way. So, I gave the image the title "Storm in a Léman Teacup". OK, that's a bit obscure but it makes my point.

Whether the title is a clever play on words, a quotation, or whatever, I would hope it makes you think, and at worst is harmless, but the unthinking judge, not getting the "joke" or reference, will allow the title to negatively affect his marking of the image. Just because he doesn't understand it... what?

The abstract title

This is another one I like, in some ways. The sort of thing I'm thinking of is:

• Solitude
• Despair
• Joy (the emotion, not the girl's name)

The good thing about such titles is they might make the viewer think about the image in a different way. The bad thing, in my opinion, is that the viewer might not agree. Let's give a blatant example. We have a photograph of a fox hunter holding up a dead fox and looking happy. We could call it "triumph"; even if you don't like fox hunting you can't disagree that that is what the guy on the horse is feeling but you might think it ought to be called "inhumanity" or something similar. In my book the image has done something amazing in generating emotion in the viewer but why should the photographer suffer for having incorrectly guessed the viewer's reaction?

The non-title

Being anti-title as I am I spent a whole year giving my competition entries non-titles. As it happens I identified them by the file name that came out of the camera: "IMGP6467", for example. I could equally have chosen "Untitled" though that wouldn't have helped with identification, so how about "Untitled 32"?

I thought this was a reasonable way to try to get judges to think for themselves. Some may have done so but many complained that the image had no title (unlike all the others). Where's your imagination? make one up if you need one. But there was a worse type of judge... the one that tried to make sense of "IMGP6467" as a title... laugh, I cried!

I could go on for ages but I want to get round to some actual examples.

RWA

Last weekend I visited the Royal West of England Academy's open Exhibition. I don't go to many art exhibitions but I like the eclectic nature of this one, I enjoy many of the works, and I like to set myself free from the restrictions of camera club competitions for a while.

As I walked round the exhibition there were plenty of "Untitled" works and some with quite impenetrable titles. It's clear that entries don't get "marked down" based on their titles. I took away two examples. I am not criticising the artists here and in fact if you've read what I wrote above you should realise that but they do illustrate some important points.

Imagine a small painting or drawing, hung too high for me to see all the detail, so bear with my vagueness. In the foreground and middle-ground there are a number of figures. In the background there are some distant buildings. The figures are casting fairly long shadows. The title of the image is "Midday".

If I were a camera club judge who thought I knew something, I might smell a rat. How can there be long shadows at midday? Impossible, mark it down! Wait a minute. Isn't that a challenge? Let's see if we can work out why the artist has given it this title? The buildings in the background look a little exotic (I can't see the detail), maybe Asian? Well, that might put the image near the equator, which would make long shadows at midday impossible, so mark it down! Wooah! What if they are buildings in northern Russia and it's spring or autumn, the sun could be quite low even at midday. This could be the explanation or maybe it isn't. Maybe you can think of another, or maybe you will just give the artist the benefit of the doubt, that he or she had a good reason for the title.

Now image another image. It's of an old-looking flat-bed lorry in some disrepair. It has worn writing on the cab: something about Bristol. The title of the image is "Abandoned 1960's lorry", but wait a minute, the lorry has a number plate; it's hanging off, but it's still attached by one end. The number plate is clearly "T-Reg", that's 1978 or 1979. OK, so you can have personalised numbers, but the rule in the UK is that a vehicle can never have a registration that is newer than the vehicle, so the lorry cannot possibly be from the 1960s. That gives me a problem. However much I like the image, I don't think I could own it, knowing that the artist misnamed it... unless I could speak to the artist and he or she explained why, but if I were judging it, the title would not affect my judgement in any way.

Sex, sex, sex

This is a post I wrote some time ago for another blog. I'm still quite pleased with it...

"Gender" is a perfectly good word. It is a linguistic construct which in many languages happens to be categorised as masculine and feminine (and sometimes neuter). There is no reason it should not be categorised by shape or colour and there may be languages that do so.

"Sex" is also a perfectly good word. It is a biological construct which is usually categorised as male and female.

It annoys me when "Gender" is used as a euphemism for "sex". No euphemism is required for that word, and if it were I am sure we could come up with something less confusing.

While I'm on the difference between "gender" and "sex", I'll touch on the use of pronouns.

In English we have masculine, feminine and neuter pronouns: "he", "she" and "it" respectively. In theory we could use "it" when we are talking of person of unknown sex, but we don't: it isn't considered polite. We should use "he", the masculine pronoun. It really annoys me when people use "she" for this purpose. Let me give you some examples to explain why it annoys me:

• I saw a footballer today. She was wearing boots.
• I saw a secretary today. He was wearing a suit.
• If you met a traffic warden, what do you think she would be wearing?

In the first two examples, I am talking about people I have seen. I presumably know their sex, and I've intentionally done a bit of sexual stereotype bending in order to make the point.

In the third example, I haven't yet met the person. By using the feminine pronoun "she", I am giving myself a picture that I am going to meet a female traffic warden. This doesn't surprise me, since a reasonable proportion of traffic wardens (in the UK) are female, but it does mean that if I meet a male traffic warden I won't consider the condition of the example to have been met. By replacing "she" with "he" in its non sex-specific sense, any traffic warden, whether male or female, will qualify. This is a matter of language, not of sexual equality. Our language is no more sexist than any other language - a language is not capable of being sexist even though its structure or vocabulary may reflect some historical bias.

I recently studied with the Open University and in some of the courses I found the author stuck permanently to using "she" in examples. I was left imagining a world full of women (incidentally, usually doing fairly menial jobs). I would not have objected to a random sprinkling of "he"s and "she"s, nor would it have caused a problem to have a text full of unspecified "he"s.

Please stop using "gender" where you mean good, old-fashioned "sex" and stop using "she" where you have no need to specify the sex of the person you are talking about.​