my and my wife's

[arthurvv vart]

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.

4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers.
5) We have invited I and my wife's co-workers.
6) We have invited me and my wife's co-workers.

Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?

In which case:
a) we have the same co-workers
in which case:
b) we have different co-workers
and in which case:
c) things are unclear and there might even be overlap

Gratefully,
Navi

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by arthurvv vart
1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers.
5) We have invited I and my wife's co-workers.
6) We have invited me and my wife's co-workers.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
a) we have the same co-workers
b) we have different co-workers
c) things are unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4 is idiomatic
in my experience but very non-standard. There are probably people who'd say
5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

They're all ambiguous about whether people are the co-workers of both or
just one. An unambiguous way to say the latter is "We have invited my co-
workers and my wife's."

[CDB]

Post by Jerry Friedman

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers. 2) We have invited
my wife's and my co-workers. 3) We have invited the co-workers of
me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers. 5) We have invited I
and my wife's co-workers. 6) We have invited me and my wife's
co-workers.
Which are grammatical? Which are idiomatic?
In which case: a) we have the same co-workers in which case: b) we
have different co-workers and in which case: c) things are unclear
and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4
is idiomatic in my experience but very non-standard. There are
probably people who'd say 5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.
They're all ambiguous about whether people are the co-workers of both
or just one. An unambiguous way to say the latter is "We have
invited my co- workers and my wife's."

Or, being married and knowing it's Ladies First, "... my wife's
co-workers and mine" (if there are two sets of them). If they are the
same bunch and "we" stands for the happy couple, "My wife and I have
invited our co-workers ...".

[[e-mail]]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:43:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by arthurvv vart
1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers.
5) We have invited I and my wife's co-workers.
6) We have invited me and my wife's co-workers.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
a) we have the same co-workers
b) we have different co-workers
c) things are unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4 is idiomatic
in my experience but very non-standard. There are probably people who'd say
5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

I would not say it, but I think that 6 is what I heard when
I was growing up in the panhandle of Texas, among farmers
and other folk with no college education.

(6) is the one I might say in Surrey, England. I met my wife at work, so
maybe that provides the context.

[charles]

Post by ***@gmail.com

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:43:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers. 2) We have invited
my wife's and my co-workers. 3) We have invited the co-workers of
me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers. 5) We have invited I
and my wife's co-workers. 6) We have invited me and my wife's
co-workers.
Which are grammatical? Which are idiomatic?
In which case: a) we have the same co-workers in which case: b)
we have different co-workers and in which case: c) things are
unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4 is
idiomatic in my experience but very non-standard. There are probably
people who'd say 5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

I would not say it, but I think that 6 is what I heard when I was
growing up in the panhandle of Texas, among farmers and other folk
with no college education.

(6) is the one I might say in Surrey, England. I met my wife at work, so
maybe that provides the context.

also from Surrey, England, I think I'd say 'work colleagues' rather than
'co-workers'

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 21:23:59 +0000 (GMT), charles

Post by charles

Post by ***@gmail.com

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:43:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers. 2) We have invited
my wife's and my co-workers. 3) We have invited the co-workers of
me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers. 5) We have invited I
and my wife's co-workers. 6) We have invited me and my wife's
co-workers.
Which are grammatical? Which are idiomatic?
In which case: a) we have the same co-workers in which case: b)
we have different co-workers and in which case: c) things are
unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4 is
idiomatic in my experience but very non-standard. There are probably
people who'd say 5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

I would not say it, but I think that 6 is what I heard when I was
growing up in the panhandle of Texas, among farmers and other folk
with no college education.

(6) is the one I might say in Surrey, England. I met my wife at work, so
maybe that provides the context.

also from Surrey, England, I think I'd say 'work colleagues' rather than
'co-workers'

Do you see a difference in what the other workers are called based on
the type of job?

I can see a programmer referring to the people who work with him as
his "colleagues", but would a dustman refer to the people who work
with him on the truck as his "colleagues", or his "workmates"?

[charles]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 21:23:59 +0000 (GMT), charles

Post by charles

Post by ***@gmail.com

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:43:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers. 2) We have
invited my wife's and my co-workers. 3) We have invited the
co-workers of me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers. 5) We have invited
I and my wife's co-workers. 6) We have invited me and my wife's
co-workers.
Which are grammatical? Which are idiomatic?
In which case: a) we have the same co-workers in which case: b)
we have different co-workers and in which case: c) things are
unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4
is idiomatic in my experience but very non-standard. There are
probably people who'd say 5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

I would not say it, but I think that 6 is what I heard when I was
growing up in the panhandle of Texas, among farmers and other folk
with no college education.

(6) is the one I might say in Surrey, England. I met my wife at work,
so maybe that provides the context.

also from Surrey, England, I think I'd say 'work colleagues' rather than
'co-workers'

Do you see a difference in what the other workers are called based on the
type of job?
I can see a programmer referring to the people who work with him as his
"colleagues", but would a dustman refer to the people who work with him
on the truck as his "colleagues", or his "workmates"?

he might indeeed say workmates - but he wouldn't sau cow-orkers

[David Kleinecke]

Post by charles

Post by ***@gmail.com

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:43:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers. 2) We have invited
my wife's and my co-workers. 3) We have invited the co-workers of
me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers. 5) We have invited I
and my wife's co-workers. 6) We have invited me and my wife's
co-workers.
Which are grammatical? Which are idiomatic?
In which case: a) we have the same co-workers in which case: b)
we have different co-workers and in which case: c) things are
unclear and there might even be overlap

I'd probably say 2 (if I were married). 1 and 3 are grammatical. 4 is
idiomatic in my experience but very non-standard. There are probably
people who'd say 5 and 6, which are equally non-standard.

I would not say it, but I think that 6 is what I heard when I was
growing up in the panhandle of Texas, among farmers and other folk
with no college education.

(6) is the one I might say in Surrey, England. I met my wife at work, so
maybe that provides the context.

also from Surrey, England, I think I'd say 'work colleagues' rather than
'co-workers'

I think all these variants are inferior to constructions using "mine"

1) We have invited my wife's co-workers and mine.

But.

1) We have invited my co-workers and my wife's .

is almost as good. Keep the second member weaker.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by arthurvv vart
1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.

I think "of" is a good solution here, as it also can be
|O, will you go away - for the sake of me and my husband
"Tess of the D'Urbervilles" (1891)
- Thomas Hardy, England (1840/1928)
and
|such, I trust, will never be the objects in life of me and
|my children
...
|I have bought a watch, which I would like you to wear in
|remembrance of me and my boy
|
"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) -
William Makepeace Thackeray, English (1811/1863)
. You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to express surprise,
incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) -
William Makepeace Thackeray, English (1811/1863)
. You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to express surprise,
incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

And while you are at it, why not use the extended version: "oh me, oh my
Giddy Aunt".
I recently heard this on a TV program, and it struck me as a very
prudish euphemism for something else. I could not figure out what the
'giddy aunt' was meant to conceal.

"Oh my god"?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) -
William Makepeace Thackeray, English (1811/1863)
. You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to express surprise,
incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

And while you are at it, why not use the extended version: "oh me, oh my
Giddy Aunt".
I recently heard this on a TV program, and it struck me as a very
prudish euphemism for something else. I could not figure out what the
'giddy aunt' was meant to conceal.

"Oh my god"?

Seems reasonable to me. The OED says only

"colloquial (originally and chiefly British). my (giddy, sainted, etc.) aunt!: used as an
exclamation expressing surprise, consternation, etc. Now somewhat dated."

In Kipling, "giddy" looks like a euphemism for "God-damned", but maybe I'm wrong
about that, since it wouldn't go too well with "my aunt" as a euphemism for "my
God".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) - William Makepeace Thackeray,
English (1811/1863) . You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to
express surprise, incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

And while you are at it, why not use the extended version: "oh
me, oh my Giddy Aunt".
I recently heard this on a TV program, and it struck me as a
very prudish euphemism for something else. I could not figure out
what the 'giddy aunt' was meant to conceal.

"Oh my god"?

Seems reasonable to me. The OED says only
"colloquial (originally and chiefly British). my (giddy, sainted,
etc.) aunt!: used as an exclamation expressing surprise,
consternation, etc. Now somewhat dated."
In Kipling, "giddy" looks like a euphemism for "God-damned", but
maybe I'm wrong about that, since it wouldn't go too well with "my
aunt" as a euphemism for "my God".

Anything that starts with "g" would do. It probably started with people
who started to say "god" and had to find a substitute in a hurry.
Another version is "Oh my godfather".

Similarly, someone who started to say "Jesus Christ" and then realised
they shouldn't would switch to "jeepers creepers".

This sort of thing is common, I've noticed, among religious people who
rapidly change what they're saying when they notice that other members
of their church are within hearing.

Even my own parents. There used to be a variant in the wording of the
song "Ain't We Got Fun" with the lines

There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children.

On a number of occasions I heard my mother singing "... and the poor get
chilblains".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) - William Makepeace Thackeray,
English (1811/1863) . You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to
express surprise, incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

And while you are at it, why not use the extended version: "oh
me, oh my Giddy Aunt".
I recently heard this on a TV program, and it struck me as a
very prudish euphemism for something else. I could not figure out
what the 'giddy aunt' was meant to conceal.

"Oh my god"?

Seems reasonable to me. The OED says only
"colloquial (originally and chiefly British). my (giddy, sainted,
etc.) aunt!: used as an exclamation expressing surprise,
consternation, etc. Now somewhat dated."
In Kipling, "giddy" looks like a euphemism for "God-damned", but
maybe I'm wrong about that, since it wouldn't go too well with "my
aunt" as a euphemism for "my God".

Anything that starts with "g" would do. It probably started with people
who started to say "god" and had to find a substitute in a hurry.
Another version is "Oh my godfather".
Similarly, someone who started to say "Jesus Christ" and then realised
they shouldn't would switch to "jeepers creepers".
This sort of thing is common, I've noticed, among religious people who
rapidly change what they're saying when they notice that other members
of their church are within hearing.
Even my own parents. There used to be a variant in the wording of the
song "Ain't We Got Fun" with the lines
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children.
On a number of occasions I heard my mother singing "... and the poor get
chilblains".

But you can see from the (non)rhyme that "children" was already a joke
version of the actual words, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

[CDB]

Post by Peter Moylan

"The Newcomes" (1854/1855) - William Makepeace Thackeray, English
(1811/1863)
. You can also use "(oh) me, oh my" to express surprise,
incredulity, or pleasure.

Especially if you happen to be visiting 1854.

And while you are at it, why not use the extended version: "oh me, oh
my Giddy Aunt".
I recently heard this on a TV program, and it struck me as a very
prudish euphemism for something else. I could not figure out what
the 'giddy aunt' was meant to conceal.

Maybe they're a trans-aunt with a sense of dislocation.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by arthurvv vart
1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers.
5) We have invited I and my wife's co-workers.
6) We have invited me and my wife's co-workers.
Which are grammatical?

None.

Post by arthurvv vart
Which are idiomatic?

None.

Post by arthurvv vart
a) we have the same co-workers
b) we have different co-workers
c) things are unclear and there might even be overlap
Gratefully,
Navi

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by arthurvv vart
1) We have invited my and my wife's co-workers.
2) We have invited my wife's and my co-workers.
3) We have invited the co-workers of me and my wife.
4) We have invited my wife and I's co-workers.
5) We have invited I and my wife's co-workers.
6) We have invited me and my wife's co-workers.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
a) we have the same co-workers

all -- so why don't you say "our"?

Post by arthurvv vart
b) we have different co-workers

a slight possibility

Post by arthurvv vart
c) things are unclear and there might even be overlap

unlikely (see above)

(4)-(6) are various varieties of ways to infuriate a prescriptivist.