Happy Birthday, Professor Steve!

March 24, 2014 • 9:57 am

And by “Professor Steve,” I mean my pal Professor Steve Jones of University College London—geneticist, collaborator (we worked together on fly migration and behavior), author, and science popularizer. As I’ve just learned from Nick Lane via Matthew Cobb, Steve turns 70 today. I dare not email him birthday wishes, as he’d just grouse and mutter, but I can put up this post and send him the link.

Many happy returns, my friend!

Here are Steve and I at the Hay Literary Festival a few years back. I was called as a last-minute replacement on a panel that included Tom Stoppard, and so I desperately needed a jacket. Steve kindly loaned me his, and, as you can see, it’s a special jacket “made especially for Professor Steve Jones.” I’m marveling at the label. Steve Jones and JAC2

28 thoughts on “Happy Birthday, Professor Steve!”

  1. If Professor Steve is 70, then that photo must have been taken in the ’90s — more than a mere “few years back.”

    Happy Birthday, Prof! And now that you’re all growed up, have you figured out what you’re supposed to be? I ask ‘cuz I still haven’t quite figured it out, myself….

    Cheers,

    b&

      1. It was when you visited Hardy’s house – 2010, wasn’t it?

        He is a great speaker so anyone who has a chance to hear him do go along. There is nothing wrong with grousing & muttering! Professors have usually earnt the right to do that, having sat through endless tedious faculty meeting I expect, not to say tolerating hundreds of earnest but dim undergraduates…

        And his bad jokes are always told with a lagubrious air – when he signed a book for me he used a no doubt well-rehearsed line, that it probably lowered its value!

      2. It was nice that he shelled out for such a smart jacket… (malacological ‘joke’ there!)

    2. I couldn’t figure out if you were being generous to Professor Steve or trying to convince Jerry his mind was going and everyone was really older than he thought, including him! Nice try either way though! 😉

  4. You wouldn’t say, if it was just you, “Here is I at the Hay Festival.”. You’d say “Here is me at the…” So by adding another person that “me” doesn’t change to an “I”.

    1. I would say “here I am with Steve”, but either way, I is correct. It is I, here is I, it is she….the verb to be does not take a direct object.

      1. It takes an indirect object, and “me” is an indirect object pronoun in sentences such as : That pizza is for me. You wouldn’t say “That pizza is for I”. Or you point to a photo and say “That’s me” not “That’s I “.

        1. No, no indirect object because no preposition! Even though it sounds stilted, it is I is correct, and so is here am I.

          2. FOR is a preposition and thus takes an indirect object: me. It is I, here am I, etc. – no objects, direct or indirect. All nominative!

          3. For is a preposition that takes an indirect object. Intransitives don’t have direct objects but I believe they can take indirect ones.

          4. But the verb to be always takes the nominative: it is I, it is she, it was he, etc. etc….or so it was drilled into my noggin.

          5. Hmmm, I think it’s just direct object not indirect object but now I can’t think of an example. However, it’s the “for” that puts the noun into the position of being a direct or indirect object….Here’s the problem: the cases are tricky in English because they’re almost all gone. So a preposition like “for” cause the noun to be in the accusative. When in doubt, do what I do and try it out in German because it always makes more sense in German since they have cases – it’s like English if its grammar were consistent (I’m joking):

            It is for me: es ist für mich. The für makes the du take the accusative even though we have a transitive verb with to be which doesn’t take a direct object.

            So, in conclusion the for allows the me instead of the I. I suspect this is an indirect object but either way, this is the convoluted Diana method of figuring out languages.

          6. Ja, aber deutsch ist nicht gleich(??) wie englisch. I thought that after a preposition (for, over, under, in, with, etc.) you always had an indirect object, which would be me. ( and why with she and I is so wrong). (I still remember dürch, für, ohne, um, gegen as taking the accusative…) All of which, in a very round-about manner, leads me to say that the reader who criticized Jerry’s original use of I was wrong (and Jerry was right).

          7. Ha ha! I only memorized: aus, außer, noch, zeit, von, zu so the datives. Together we know them all! I figured I’d learn those so that the rest I’d just make accusative. Also I remembered “dead”=dative. No movement for the non remembered prepositions.

            So then I’m right with English? It’s an indirect object after the pronoun so that’s why it takes “me”.

          8. Yeah, between us we’ve got the German prepositions nailed! I think you meant prepositions not pronouns in your last sentence.

          9. Yeah I meant prepositions. Must be the deleterious consequences of the vaccines from today….NOT!

          10. Yup – everyone knows that vaccines mess with your prepositions – or is it propositions? Like those commies that put the fluoride in our drinking water-LOL

            Was fluoride ever a political issue up here in Canada?

          11. It was a bit. Recently I think there was a push to have it removed from drinking water. I think Guelph may have removed it but I can’t be sure.

Comments are closed.