A WORD, PLEASE:

I’m not a stickler. A lot of people assume I am. They think that, because I write a column about grammar, surely I’m “pro” good grammar — someone who believes that people should opt for the most proper language and eschew newer, less formal and more controversial uses.

Not true.

I don’t believe in telling people how to speak or write. Dictionaries disagree with one another on many issues, grammarians disagree, usage guides and style books disagree — who am I to say which ones are right and which are wrong?

If I advocate anything, it’s not using good grammar but understanding grammar. It’s much more important to know what a subordinate clause is than to demand that “healthy” can’t mean “healthful” — especially since this is one of those cases in which dictionaries disagree.

A subordinate clause, by the way, is a clause that can’t stand on its own as a sentence. For example, “I slept” is a clause — it contains a subject and a verb — and it also works as a whole sentence. But slap a subordinator like “because” or “if” or “since” or “whether” or “though” or “while,” and suddenly the clause could not stand alone as a complete sentence. So it’s a subordinate clause.

But recently I found myself on the other side of these arguments. I stumbled across some buzz on the websites of Lakeland, Fla.’s The Ledger newspaper and the Amarillo Globe-News in Texas. There, readers were complaining about something Arne Duncan, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick for education secretary, said in his acceptance speech. According to these sites, Duncan thanked those who “gave my sister and I?.?.?.” I don’t know what, exactly, was given. But I don’t need to.

According to the rules of proper grammar, that should have been “my sister and me.” The verb, “gave,” is calling for an object form and not a subject form. That is, you’d say “I gave him” some money and not “I gave he” some money. That’s because “him” is an object pronoun and “he” is a subject pronoun. Most native English speakers have an innate grasp of this concept, but they let themselves get thrown off course by “A and B” constructions. When in doubt, try dropping one of the subjects. They “gave me” something or they “gave I” something? Or try plugging in “us” and “we”: They “gave us” something or they “gave we” something? The answers become instantly clear.

But there’s a separate question that I found myself debating online. Can you dismiss Duncan’s construction as an informal use? There are many, many exceptions to proper grammar that are accepted as idiomatic or informal. For example, “He runs faster than I” is grammatically correct but “He runs faster than me” is widely accepted as an idiomatic, informal alternative.

So the question is: Should we give Duncan the same kind of slack for using “gave my sister and I”? People I debated with online — academic types mostly — said yes. It’s well documented that educated speakers and writers opt for “blank and I” in cases that call for an object. But, in my experience, they do so not by choice but out of ignorance. In the grammar classes I’ve taught and in discussions with friends, I’ve learned that most college graduates I encounter don’t understand the basics of object pronouns. They say “He gave it to my sister and I” not because they’re speaking casually or idiomatically, but, quite the opposite, because they’re trying to be as grammatically correct as possible. It’s not a choice like “than me” or like “like” in place of “such as.” It’s a conscious but failed attempt to be as grammatically correct as possible.

And that’s why, in an acceptance speech for the job of education secretary of the United States, Duncan should have demonstrated a grasp of subject and object pronouns.

?JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer and author of “Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies” and “Mortal Syntax: 101 Language Choices That Will Get You Clobbered by the Grammar Snobs — Even If You’re Right.” She may be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.