There is no subjunctive mood in English.

>>So it's correct to say "Me saw a good film last night"?<<

No, that would generally be perceived as ungrammatical, as there is only a single subject here, and the use of oblique case subjects is limited to when multiple subjects are present in most dialects. However, "Me and my friends saw a good film last night" would be grammatical in at least most dialects, due to having multiple subjects.

>><However, there is something that seems rather weird about your sentence, which is while your sentence is grammatical, the word ordering subjectively seems rather off.>

What does "rather off" mean there?<<

For something to "seem off" means that it *subjectively* seems wrong to some degree in some way or another.

<For something to "seem off" means that it *subjectively* seems wrong to some degree in some way or another.>

So you do admit to subjectively recognising errors?

In conversation, as educated as I am, in educated company, I would say "Me and my friends saw a good film last night" or "My friends and I saw a good film last night". But not "My friends and me saw..." nor "I and my friends saw...".

Yes, I know it's illogical but that's just the way it is.

Do you not think that there is just a wee bit of convolution in here? You can get your point across in straightforward simplicity more effectively than using superfluous tautology! ;-)

>>So you do admit to subjectively recognising errors?<<

The thing is that such is purely subjective, and is different from whether something is "incorrect" or not from some kind of objective standpoint. For instance, speakers of two different dialects may mutually perceive features of the each other's dialect as "off" simply due to lack of familiarity with it, which in and of itself in no way makes said features "incorrect".

But again, why are you trying to push prescriptivist positions, along with M56 and Ed, so much?

Kirk : danke. Travis : 'tschuldigung (war wirklich zu faul...).

greg, kein Problem.

<So it's correct to say "Me saw a good film last night"? >

Travis wrote:

<No, that would generally be perceived as ungrammatical, >

Not in a few West Indian dialects.

<Do you not think that there is just a wee bit of convolution in here? You can get your point across in straightforward simplicity more effectively than using superfluous tautology! ;-) >

Who are you talking to there, Damian?

<But again, why are you trying to push prescriptivist positions, along with M56 and Ed, so much? >

Nobody is pushing anything such, Travis. You've just got this rather black and white , some what naive, view of what you see as the baddies (prescriptivists) versus the goodies (desriptivists). In reality, each of those has his/her place in commenting on usage and a specific role to fulfil.

I'm a dialectal layman, i.e. I have some knowledge of English dialects, but I'm not an expert. I'm telling you that even in nonstandard dialects (and I see the standard form of English as a dialect) there are prescriptivists who set out rules. Try using the "wrong" form in Cockney and see where it gets you. So, users of all kinds make errors - and not just slips of the tongue, but constantly repeated mistakes.

It's life.

>> <No, that would generally be perceived as ungrammatical, >

Not in a few West Indian dialects.<<

You did not quote my entire line, which was:

"No, that would generally be perceived as ungrammatical, as there is only a single subject here, and the use of oblique case subjects is limited to when multiple subjects are present in most dialects."

The words that matter here are "generally" and "in most dialects", which mean that there are dialects to which such does not apply, even though such may apply to a large portion of dialects. Remember, I did not say "in all dialects" here.

Of course, then, such is just practically standard boilerplate, since with English dialects, even if a very large portion follow a particular pattern, it is still often not too hard to dig up some dialect somewhere which does not, as you have done here.

>><But again, why are you trying to push prescriptivist positions, along with M56 and Ed, so much? >

Nobody is pushing anything such, Travis. You've just got this rather black and white , some what naive, view of what you see as the baddies (prescriptivists) versus the goodies (desriptivists). In reality, each of those has his/her place in commenting on usage and a specific role to fulfil.<<

The main thing is descriptivism is a very basic principle to linguistics as a whole, and has been so for a long time (i.e. since the nineteeth century). You said that you had written a number of papers when it comes to linguistic matters, so I am rather surprised that you still underlyingly sympathize with the prescriptive grammarian sorts nonetheless.

The other part to such is more tied up in sociopolitical matters. To support prescriptive ideas is to essentially say that those few doing the prescribing, grammarians, pundits, and like, somehow know better than the vast majority of speakers, and much of what said speakers say is somehow "incorrect" just due to it varying from what said grammarians and pundits proclaim as "standard". Essentially, prescriptivism is extremely elitist in nature; however, it is not simply elitist in the fashion of some being more knowledgeable than others (e.g. why most laypersons really cannot say much when it comes to linguistic matters) but rather in the sense of some small group somehow automatically knowing Better than the general population on *arbitrary* grounds.

From a more subjective point of view, I also strongly oppose prescriptive views specifically because local dialects are closely tied into local identity and culture. In many cases, as what prescriptivists would prescribe would often differ not too insignificantly from said dialects, to support prescriptivism would be to essentially say that such dialects "should" be replaced by some arbitrary "standard", and would not just be an attack on said dialects, but also on local identity and culture by extension. And of course, this applies to anyone speaks some dialect which is not just easily described as falling under some "standard", and especially if said dialect is tied to some outside identity, my dialect included (which is actually part of why I am very vehement about this).

>>I'm a dialectal layman, i.e. I have some knowledge of English dialects, but I'm not an expert. I'm telling you that even in nonstandard dialects (and I see the standard form of English as a dialect) there are prescriptivists who set out rules. Try using the "wrong" form in Cockney and see where it gets you.<<

One note here, of course, is that when one speaks of "native speaker" in contexts like this, it really only applies to their own native dialect. For instance, I could very well be "incorrect" when speaking, say, Cockney, even though it is an English dialect and English is my native language.

Going on from that, I in no fashion stated that dialects do not have rules, which they most definitely do have. It just is that those rules are defined by the usage of native speakers of said dialect overall and they together perceive as (un)grammatical rather than by the likes of Fowler. Of course, these kinds of criteria apply perfectly well to your example of Cockney, as, unless one actually natively spoke it, one would still be constrained by the rules defined by actual native speakers of that dialect.

>>So, users of all kinds make errors - and not just slips of the tongue, but constantly repeated mistakes.<<

But there is a difference in making errors attempting to speak someone else's dialect and in speaking one's own native dialect, even if they would generally be thought of as dialects of the same language.

<The main thing is descriptivism is a very basic principle to linguistics as a whole, and has been so for a long time (i.e. since the nineteeth century). You said that you had written a number of papers when it comes to linguistic matters, so I am rather surprised that you still underlyingly sympathize with the prescriptive grammarian sorts nonetheless.>

LOL! There you go again with your polarized views.

<To support prescriptive ideas is to essentially say that those few doing the prescribing, grammarians, pundits, and like, somehow know better than the vast majority of speakers, and much of what said speakers say is somehow "incorrect" just due to it varying from what said grammarians and pundits proclaim as "standard". >

Yes, yes, we've all hear the political rants a thousand times before.

<Going on from that, I in no fashion stated that dialects do not have rules, which they most definitely do have. It just is that those rules are defined by the usage of native speakers of said dialect overall and they together perceive as (un)grammatical rather than by the likes of Fowler.>

The usage is controlled and prescribed by certain commentators in many dialects. Those commentators are themselves speakers of those dialects.
For you to deny that there are certain members who say "this is what we say and not that" or "this is correct in our dialect and not that" is odd to say the least. There is a tradition of prescriptivism, even among dialect users. One interesting example was related by Barrie Rhodes, of the Yorkshire Dialect Society:

"...one of my friends in Norway uses the musical hall northern expression “Ee, by gum!” and so, increasingly, does her daughter. My friend says she picked up this expression from one of her mother's in-laws in Lancashire.

Now, given that this expression is habitually used by two people in Lillestrom, does it now make it part of that locality's “dialect”? This sort of example makes a nonsense of trying to draw boundaries (and, even worse, draw isoglosses) around "dialect regions". We have to accept that the term "dialect" is nothing more than a convenient label, a shared shorthand for a very complex concept."

Now, are you going to tell me that there will not be many prescriptive comments coming from the natives of Lillestrom that will wish to allow the use of "Ee, by gum!" to become a part of their local dialect?

And, if there are voices working against the entry of new expressions and forms into their local dialect, then we can label such as prescriptivism.

<Of course, these kinds of criteria apply perfectly well to your example of Cockney, as, unless one actually natively spoke it, one would still be constrained by the rules defined by actual native speakers of that dialect.>

Yes, to be constrained by rules says that prescriptivism is at work.