.....It's important for me to clear up a couple of things. First of all, I do wear replicas of the DFC & Air Medals that have been awarded to me. I am honored that the Distinguished Flying Cross was first awarded to the civilian fliers, Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart by President Roosevelt. Since then, only airmen who have seen combat can wear those medals. I have been awarded two DFCs for my experiences in WWII. According to the document that accompanied the medals, they are awarded for "valor and extraordinary heroism in aerial combat." I am not prepared or interested in recounting what I, myself, did to earn these medals, and I never will care to discuss it--I wear the replica pins on my hats and on my suspenders (whose primary use is to uphold my pants) solely in memory of my friends who lost their lives in battle. I do not wear them to glorify my own wartime record; but I do understand why people may believe so. They can believe whatever they choose to believe, but the pins I wear help me to remember those that I lost, and to glorify their deeds, not mine......And the second concern that I have is in regard to my PhD. The last time our theatre arts class put on a show for residents of our community, I had a monologue that I was to read, and our leader showed me a copy of the program which listed my name as Dr. Norman Ross. I asked her not to use my title because it was not appropriate in that context; that is, in a playbill. The title Dr. should only be used in conjunction with a medical degree. Neither do I wish to be addressed by my title if not in an academic environment--for example, if I am teaching a class. I do not want people to address me as "Dr. Ross" around here, although there are a couple of residents with that title who have no objections to being addressed as "Dr." As for me, I cannot cure a cold or a disease or deliver a baby, or do hip surgery--if someone around here wants help from me, I can help them with their spelling--and that's about it.
.....So, let it be known and broadcast that I really do not go around patting myself on the back, nor do I think I'm the bees knees or the cat's pajamas. If I am--that's for others to say, not me (or is it "not I"?)
This creates a dilemma for me. For years, I have been proud to be referred to as "Little Doc," particularly by Vikings who had been on a running track. If you give up your title in certain circumstances, can I no longer accept the nickname Little Doc, except in academic venues?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I see your point. I once worked with someone with a PhD who always corrected people who would refer to him as "Mr." However, his degree was in Chemical Engineering, and we were in an environment that dealt primarily with researching Internet data. In other words, his advanced studies were irrelevant to our task. Therefore, for my own entertainment, I always was sure to introduce him to others as "Mr.", just to force him to look like fool when he corrected me. Does that make me a bad person?
No, Joel, that does not make you a bad person. Neither does anything else of which I know. As for the doctor, he is covered in glory and achievement.
ReplyDeleteOn Le Baron's grammatical question, I would opt for "Me" because it is part of an elliptical construction that implies, "It is not for ME to say."
And so it goes.
Actually,The Doc reports, the correct immediate response to the construction, "Who's one of a kind? Not I/me" is "It's not I", which is Standard English. Of course, in the office or on the street in casual conversation "It's me" will do. But If you insist on answering with "It's not I", your evaluation reports might suffer. PBs solution, "It is not for me to say," is not to be dismissed; however "It's not I" is primary in the context of the title to this blog entry.
ReplyDeleteCould one really say, "It is not for I to say"? I was, for several years, an editor at Columbia University Press and (fact, no brag) was generally the authority on grammatical questions. However, since this is the Baron's blog, he is entitled to the final decision in matters.
ReplyDeleteDear Philby--Please don't humor me nor change my sentence construction. I agree that one could not say, "It is not for I to say." But that is not to be warped as the answer to my question, "WHO'S ONE OF A KIND?" I did not write nor imply "Who's to say? It is not for I/me to say." I did not DUCK the answer to the question by saying "It's not for me to say." I ACTUALLY DID SAY WHO IT WAS TO SAY; AND I SAID "IT IS NOT I." You are to be commended for your editorship at Columbia, and your wisdom is universally acknowledged. But I have a doctorate in English and I write books and my grammar therein is flawless(fact, not brag) so cut me some slack, friend. It is not I who is one of a kind...fact, not fiction.
ReplyDelete