[Qent]

Because in sentences like "Whom are you talking to?" it obscures the fact that "to" has the object "Whom." In that case I'm pretty sure it's not an adverb either, since they don't have objects.

[Kolgena]

Just because our grammatical rules are being forgotten left and right doesn't make common usages any less wrong.

It's John and I.

Whenever you use <name> and I/me, you should be able to replace it with "I/me" and still have the sentence work.

I went to the cinema. Works
Me went to the cinema. Sounds stupid. This is why you can't say "John and me went to the cinema".

Batutta robbed me. Works. (Batutta robbed John and me.)
Batutta robbed I. yeahno. This is why you can't say "Batutta robbed John and I".

Then again, those are rules intended more for written language. In spoken language, no one really cares about most of the finer rules.

[Qent]

Yeah, I've long thought that (for instance) the sentence "It is I" doesn't mean what it says anymore. Really it means something like "It is I (literally) and also I'm being flippant right now by being ridiculously strict with my English." Even if that's not what you mean when you say it, that's what I'll understand, so better to use incorrect grammar that tells me what you mean.

Or something along those lines, if that makes sense.

[Kolgena]

Reminds me of . I love alots a lot. They're so cute!

Edit: Fsck. The one time al0t is used correctly, the board decides to 'fix' it for me

[Qent]

Alot. Ha!

Also the linky.

[Solatar]

Just because our grammatical rules are being forgotten left and right doesn't make common usages any less wrong.

But what if some of those rules were written by a bunch of elitist douchebags who wanted everyone to learn Latin in the first place?  Who's to tell me that I can't use double negatives because 'logically' two negatives negate each other, thus while I think I'm using "I ain't doin' nothin'" as "I'm really doing nothing", THEY know better that I mean "I'm doing something".

And run on sentences are very Germanic...

EDIT: According to 18th century logical grammarians, this sentence:

There never was no man nowhere so virtuous.

Means there was a never a man, anywhere, so virtuous.  Chaucer means there's a VERY virtuous man around.

[Mongoose]

One structure that drives me up the wall, though I think it's actually considered acceptable, is "alright."  I don't know what it is, but I can't stand to use that myself and always go with "all right."

[Solatar]

Amusingly enough, just out of curiosity I looked 'alright' up on the OED.  Came up as "form" of "all right" but also as a separate adverb:

obs.

  Just, exactly.
OE    Rule St. Benet (Corpus Cambr.) lxxii. 131   Ealswa yfel biternesse anda and æfst ascyred [read ascyreð] fram Gode‥, ealrihte swa god anda and anhering ascyreð fram synna leahtrum.
lOE    Anglo-Saxon Chron. (Laud) (Peterborough contin.) anno 1127,   Þær he wunede eallriht swa drane doð on hiue.
c1175    Lamb. Hom. 133  Alrihtes swa alse þe wise teolie‥nimeð ȝeme of twam þingen.
a1250  (1200)    Ancrene Riwle (Nero) (1952) 40,   & alriht so of ðe oðre wittes.

It appears there is considerable historical predecent.

EDIT: OE - Old English and lOE is Late Old English if you didn't catch it.

[karajorma]

Sometimes it's not worth the effort to try to snootily explain why you're actually right to whomever says it.

Given that they've almost always just snootily explained it to someone else, I give them both barrels.

If you're gonna grammar Nazi at least get it correct.