While we're at it, Wordsmith, "...me and Mike's house" does not mean the same thing as "...Mike's and my house". "me" must be "my", the possesive. It is MY house, too, not ME house (unless you're a pirate):

Actually, "everyone is coming over to me and Mike's house", technically means that everyone is coming to me to be in my presence (not necessarily in anyone's house) and then, before, after, or during, they are going over to Mike's house. This is not what Amanda intended.

As for putting "me" first, it's usually considered bad grammar, but if you accept it as syntactically correct, it is still something to be avoided because it is considered rude, even in informal speech.

Lastly, even if it were correct (which it's not), why would you recommend it over Amanda's version? There's no advantage. It certainly isn't any clearer or more concise.

Amanda, if you think "Everyone is coming to Mike's and my house" sounds stilted, why not just say "Everyone is coming to our house"? I'm sure most everyone invited knows who you are.

Just a gut feeling, but I think few would say "Mike's and my house" unless Mike were not a spouse, but a completely unrelated person and none of the guests knew that the two of you owned a home together.

While there may be some overlap, doofus usually describes someone socially inept, while, a true idiot, non-metaphorically, is profoundly mentally retarded.

Who told you that, CTP? "The queen of Sheba's pearls" is perfectly correct. "The queen's of Sheba pearls" is incorrect. David is right. -'s can be added to a phrase. Yes, the pearls belong to the queen, not to Sheba, but that's irrelevant to the grammar.

Gee, Stacie, if the format has changed so much that it is a "faux pas" to use numbers (2nd annual, etc.), then I would think it's equally wrong to even call it annual. As a matter of fact, it would even be dishonest and disingenuous to use the same name for the event. There is no acceptable amount of difference that makes it OK to say annual, but just different enough to not say 2nd annual.

Janet, sorry, but I believe you are totally incorrect, both grammatically and historically. The traditional rule for apostrophes has always been to also include using them for forming plurals with numbers, single letters, abbreviations or acronyms, and when pluralizing words where the word itself is used abstractly as a noun (e.g. "here is a list of do's for the occasion"). Such usage avoids confusion, e.g., in "how many i's are in the word 'imprint'?", using i's avoids confusion with the word "is". Also, when abbreviating years, for example, this one, one should write '07 (but the 90's is correct as a plural). As for your comment that more and more people are doing it, exactly the opposite is true. The rule for these extra uses of apostrophes is actually the older one. The movement to avoid such usage is recent, and the traditional use is sometimes criticized as being old-fashioned. Appropriate use of quotation marks instead is often recommended.

I think a little history lesson might be in order here. Jimmy is on the right track. The -ize ending was universal in ALL English until very recently, only about a hundred years ago. -ize isn't some rampant Americanism. It is the British (and Commonwealth) who diverged from the norm, influenced by the French spellings. That's why there is still resistance to -ise in the UK especially in academic circles.

I think a little history lesson might be in order here. Jimmy is on the right track. The -ize ending was universal in ALL English until very recently, only about a hundred years ago. -ize isn't some rampant Americanism. It is the British (and Commonwealth) who diverged from the norm, influenced by the French spellings. That's why there is still resistance to -ise in the UK especially in academic circles.

Owl, The colloquialism, "a couple of" doesn't necessarily mean two. It can also mean "a small indeterminate number; two or more", just like "a few". I'm afraid if you really want to specify "two", you just have to say "two".

Tanwir, I think you got that a little garbled. No one would say "there are few too applicants..." I think you meant "there are too few applicants..."
"Too few" means "not enough".
compare "many" = a lot, "few" = a small number.
Then compare "too many" = an unacceptably large number,
"too few" = an unacceptably small number.

It is true that such words are adverbs, but it is not true that you need a conjunction. Previously, a semicolon before, and a comma after would be required, but this is now considered obsolete. Simply preceding with a comma is sufficient.