There are several strong tendencies of English usage involved here.
(1) (perhaps most important) The old case system has broken down almost completely except for a possessive/non-possessive contrast on nouns (John vs. John’s) and the differences in pronouns —
subject-case, object-case, possessive
I, me, my
you, you, your [*not* you’re!]
he, him, his
she, her, her
it, it, its [*not* it’s!]
we, us, our
they, them, their [*not* they’re nor there]
(2) As part of this process of case loss, for centuries people in many places and socio-economic strata (classes) have tended to at least sporadically substitute the object-case me, him and her for the subject-case I, he, and she, much as the object-case you took over the territory of the subject-case ye. Especially they did this in N-and-pronoun noun phrases: John and me are going to town.
(3) As a result people who prided themselves on their correctness made a point of using subject-case forms instead of object-case forms, *even where the object-case was called for*. This is hyper-correction, and it is the source of the usages of "to he and I" instead of "to him and me". This especially (but by no means only) happened in complex "N-and-pronoun" phrases. For people brought up in the tradition started by this hyper-correction (including several of y’all writing below) it is completely standard and sensible. The rule may be stated as “never say and me, say and I instead.
(4) Meanwhile, pedants (such as I ;-) ) continue to use and me for object-case contexts and and I for subject-case contexts, and shudder —with shudders at least equally vigorous to yours, Jessica and Beth!— when the latter is misused for the former. Or vice versa, for
(5) People including children raised by pedantic parents still keep saying things like him and me are going to the store, following development (2) above.
(6) If a structure doesn't have a clear subject/object division of roles, many speakers are uncertain what to do. It used to be thought that if a verb, particularly the verb to be, meant equation or equivalence between a subject and another pronoun or noun phrase, that second noun phrase, being equivalent to the subject, should be in subject case too. That is the origin (since Latin, or probably Indo-European) of the rule that you should say It is I. But for many, probably most, English speakers the rule now is that subjects go before the verb and anything after the verb is probably some kind of object. So you should say it’s me. Standard and sensible.
With relative pronouns like who and whom, you have to deal with two clauses, and the pronoun-form used to depend on its function in the embedded clause, but increasing responds to use in the matrix clause. So it used to be give it to whoever wants it as opposed to give it to whomever you want, but nowadays you hear give it to whomever wants it and (of course) give it to whoever you want.
In the context of JAFF, Jane herself was very consistent, using the rules we pedants (*not* us pedants) still adhere to. Out of respect to her, not out of respect to us pedants (*not* we pedants), you probably want to keep your Regency pieces in something nearer her English. If those of you who write moderns want to be kind to us pedants, you can write "for her and me/us" and spare our shudders, but if you want to be kind to the sensible people mentioned above, go ahead and write instead of "for she and I/we". Or better yet, write it in your own native English. Unless of course the characters are pedants like ?me? (like I (am)). You second-language speakers, I guess the best I can say is to go with the flow!
No wonder everybody’s confused!
(If any of you are still with me after all that, I am in awe!)
—Nat
(1) (perhaps most important) The old case system has broken down almost completely except for a possessive/non-possessive contrast on nouns (John vs. John’s) and the differences in pronouns —
subject-case, object-case, possessive
I, me, my
you, you, your [*not* you’re!]
he, him, his
she, her, her
it, it, its [*not* it’s!]
we, us, our
they, them, their [*not* they’re nor there]
(2) As part of this process of case loss, for centuries people in many places and socio-economic strata (classes) have tended to at least sporadically substitute the object-case me, him and her for the subject-case I, he, and she, much as the object-case you took over the territory of the subject-case ye. Especially they did this in N-and-pronoun noun phrases: John and me are going to town.
(3) As a result people who prided themselves on their correctness made a point of using subject-case forms instead of object-case forms, *even where the object-case was called for*. This is hyper-correction, and it is the source of the usages of "to he and I" instead of "to him and me". This especially (but by no means only) happened in complex "N-and-pronoun" phrases. For people brought up in the tradition started by this hyper-correction (including several of y’all writing below) it is completely standard and sensible. The rule may be stated as “never say and me, say and I instead.
(4) Meanwhile, pedants (such as I ;-) ) continue to use and me for object-case contexts and and I for subject-case contexts, and shudder —with shudders at least equally vigorous to yours, Jessica and Beth!— when the latter is misused for the former. Or vice versa, for
(5) People including children raised by pedantic parents still keep saying things like him and me are going to the store, following development (2) above.
(6) If a structure doesn't have a clear subject/object division of roles, many speakers are uncertain what to do. It used to be thought that if a verb, particularly the verb to be, meant equation or equivalence between a subject and another pronoun or noun phrase, that second noun phrase, being equivalent to the subject, should be in subject case too. That is the origin (since Latin, or probably Indo-European) of the rule that you should say It is I. But for many, probably most, English speakers the rule now is that subjects go before the verb and anything after the verb is probably some kind of object. So you should say it’s me. Standard and sensible.
With relative pronouns like who and whom, you have to deal with two clauses, and the pronoun-form used to depend on its function in the embedded clause, but increasing responds to use in the matrix clause. So it used to be give it to whoever wants it as opposed to give it to whomever you want, but nowadays you hear give it to whomever wants it and (of course) give it to whoever you want.
In the context of JAFF, Jane herself was very consistent, using the rules we pedants (*not* us pedants) still adhere to. Out of respect to her, not out of respect to us pedants (*not* we pedants), you probably want to keep your Regency pieces in something nearer her English. If those of you who write moderns want to be kind to us pedants, you can write "for her and me/us" and spare our shudders, but if you want to be kind to the sensible people mentioned above, go ahead and write instead of "for she and I/we". Or better yet, write it in your own native English. Unless of course the characters are pedants like ?me? (like I (am)). You second-language speakers, I guess the best I can say is to go with the flow!
No wonder everybody’s confused!
(If any of you are still with me after all that, I am in awe!)
—Nat