<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you’re right. </p>
<p>(By the way, I have never heard anyone refer to pronouns as “proper” or “improper.”)</p>
<p>I was referring strictly to how they are used in the blank: “The recipient was _____.” Here, “me” is improper and “I” is proper.</p>
<p>Ah, I was interpreting it generally.</p>
<p>Yes, besides the “were” issue above… and the fact that people can’t spell “recipient”</p>
<p>If you rearrange the phrases, you get</p>
<p>Peter and I were the actual recipients of the bad news
OR
Peter and me were(“was”) the actual recipients of the bad news </p>
<p>If it’s not obvious at this point, I’ll continue.</p>
<p>This can be manipulated into</p>
<p>Peter was the actual recipient of the bad news; I was the actual recipient of the bad news.
(Since it’s plural, it changes to “were” when they’re together)
OR
Peter was the actual recipient of the bad news; me was the actual recipient of the bad news.</p>
<p>Obviously the second is incorrect as “me was” makes no sense. Hence, the first is correct. Now, usually you’d look at that and be able to figure it out in 5 seconds, but those are the steps.</p>
<p>Credibility from my 17 years of English experience (being alive), and the fact that I got all of the MC right for SAT Writing.</p>
<p>^ I think we have already settled the issue. :)</p>
<p>The correct answer is “Peter and I” because the sentence equates “Peter and I” with “recipients.” Structurally, they carry out the same function in the sentence. You see the linking verb “were” and you can invert the “Peter and I” and “recipients” and the meaning doesn’t change.</p>
<p>It can also be negative – they only have to be equal in STRUCTURE, not in actual meaning/content. For example, “The recipients of the award were not Peter and I.” is correct because you have the linking verb “were” and can still invert the sentence and it makes sense: “Peter and I were not the recipients of the award.”</p>
<p>Linking verbs are called linking verbs because they LINK two things together. Back in the stone age, we had to memorize these in third grade English class. Later, in seventh grade, we were taught how to diagram sentences and believe me, if you know how to do this, it all makes visual sense in a way I can’t describe here. </p>
<p>Linking verbs are essentially any form of the “to be” verb OR something meaning the same thing: </p>
<p>Forms of be: Is/isn’t, are/are not, was/wasn’t, were/weren’t, be/won’t be, am/am not, being, have been, etc. </p>
<p>Equivalent in meaning: seems, etc</p>
<p>BTW, linking verbs CAN link nouns and adjectives and require the subjective case if the two can be inverted. “I was upset.” / “Upset was I.” - both are correct.</p>
<p>OK I really didn’t understand Silverturtle’s explanation (grammar words are too complex lol) but computergeek’s post kind of makes sense. I guess whenever I do the pronoun questions, I should logically think of who the subject/object is in addition to deleting the other subject to figure out he vs him, etc. So my next question is (I think this has already been kind of touched on this thread, but I just want to confirm) when can you grammatically invert a sentence; is it when there are linking verbs (like to be) used in the sentence?
Btdubs, I tried to locate the edit button, but for some weird reason, I couldn’t find it on my OP. Weird…</p>
<p>ACTUALLY
I messed up (as usual)
Here are the actual answer choices:
The letter was intended for Betsey and him, but the actual recipients of the bad news were Peter and I.
OR
The letter was intended for Betsey and him, but Peter and me actually received the bad news.
Now it’s so much more obvious lulz.</p>
<p>^Wow. Indeed, you totally just made the answer obvious. </p>
<p>By the way, everyone, I am confused on why you are getting so obsessed with the grammar rules. You don’t need to know them to get an 800 on the writing section. I hope you don’t say for each question, “Well… this clause here is the compound predicate nominative of the subject recipients,” etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to what grammar source? To my knowledge, only pronouns, nouns, noun clauses, and gerunds can be subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the question is tough, I will indeed apply my knowledge of grammar to arrive reliably at the correct answer. Most of the time, however, the questions are not difficult enough to warrant a technical analysis.</p>
<p>I actually don’t see how “Upset was I” is ungrammatical. The subject is still “I”; the sentence is just inverted:</p>
<p>[Inverted</a> sentence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sentence]Inverted”>Inverted sentence - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am still curious to see a grammar source that endorses inverted constructions with predicate adjectives.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs1/grammarlogs236.htm]The”>http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs1/grammarlogs236.htm]The</a> Grammar Logs – Number Two Hundred, Thirty-Six<a href=“second%20to%20last%20log”>/url</a></p>
<p>It doesn’t explicitly say that it is grammatical to start a sentence with a predicate adjective, but it, as well as the Wikipedia article on inverted sentences, seems to imply that it is possible.</p>
<p>^ Whoever wrote that did not seem too confident.</p>
<p>OK, I found a book:
[Essentials</a> of German - Google Books](<a href=“Essentials of German - Bert John Vos - Google Books”>Essentials of German - Bert John Vos - Google Books)
</p>
<p>^ The writer is referring to German. Notice that author says that the inversion for questions in German functions as it does in English and, thus, does not take the time to explain it thoroughly. Yet in the second section (which you cite) there is no mention of English.</p>
<p>I agree that “upset am I” is non-standard, but a predicate adjective or an adverb CAN begin a sentence. Take into consideration these sentences (taken from different sources):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“So high is Mount Everest that climbers can take only a couple of steps per minute as they near the summit.”</p></li>
<li><p>“I am fond of flamenco dancing.”
“So am I.”</p></li>
<li><p>“So excited were they that they couldn’t sit still.”</p></li>
<li><p>“Such was their excitement that they began to jump up and down.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Ha, I found myself writing this clause just now:</p>
<p>Also common is the idea that…</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>^ As I have said before, why does knowing the exact grammar rules matter at all?</p>
<p>^ See post #50.</p>