"I" or "me" ?
Raymond
Which is the correct answer to the following question?
Question: "Who is it?"
Answers:
a) It's I. Steven.
b) It's me. Steven.
Majority of people use "it's me", and that makes me wonder why the pronoun
"me" is used with "who" which is in the nominative case. It's like saying
"me took your pen" as the answer to "Who took my pen?".
Gee, I'm confused.
Ian Griffiths
Raymond <rc...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
<01bc3e69$1e259940$LocalHost@7610hva60236>...
It's what they're used to...
I understand that the rule is something like this: the verb "to be" takes
a nominative complement. However this suggests that you should
hear things like this:
"Look! Over there! It's they!"
--
Ian Griffiths
Timothy Hunt
In article <3340FD...@uni-muenster.de>,
Peter Wolff <wol...@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
>If, however, you want to use the "It", then "I" is no longer the subject
>of the sentence. "It is I" is therefor incorrect.
But the direct object of "to be" will be in apposition, and thus the object
will be nominative (same as the subject) rather than accusative.
"It is I" is correct.
Timothy
--
The above words are my words, and do not necessarily reflect the views of
anyone else.
Peter Wolff
Raymond wrote:
>
> Which is the correct answer to the following question?
>
> Question: "Who is it?"
>
> Answers:
> a) It's I. Steven.
> b) It's me. Steven.
>
> Majority of people use "it's me", and that makes me wonder why the pronoun
> "me" is used with "who" which is in the nominative case. It's like saying
> "me took your pen" as the answer to "Who took my pen?".
If you answer the question "Who is it?" with a sentence that has does
not use "It" but "I" as the subject, "I" is correct: "I am it." (sounds
terrible!!!)
BILLM...@delphi.com
Quoting "Raymond"<rcsnt from a message in alt.usage.english
>Which is the correct answer to the following question?
>Question: "Who is it?"
>Answers:
>a) It's I. Steven.
>b) It's me. Steven.
>Majority of people use "it's me", and that makes me wonder why the
>pronoun "me" is used with "who" which is in the nominative case. It's
>like saying "me took your pen" as the answer to "Who took my pen?".
>Gee, I'm confused.
I would reply either "It is I" or "It's me". I know "It's I"
is considered correct, but it doesn't sound right, probably
because I've almost never heard it.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
(billmccray at delphi dot com)
Robert Lieblich
Albert Marshall wrote:
>
> In article <3340FD...@uni-muenster.de>, Peter Wolff <wolffpe@uni-
> muenster.de> writes
> >Raymond wrote:
> >>
> >> Which is the correct answer to the following question?
> >>
> >> Question: "Who is it?"
> >>
> >> Answers:
> >> a) It's I. Steven.
> >> b) It's me. Steven.
> >>
> >> Majority of people use "it's me", and that makes me wonder why the pronoun
> >> "me" is used with "who" which is in the nominative case. It's like saying
> >> "me took your pen" as the answer to "Who took my pen?".
> >> Gee, I'm confused.
> >
> >not use "It" but "I" as the subject, "I" is correct: "I am it." (sounds
> >terrible!!!)
> >
> >If, however, you want to use the "It", then "I" is no longer the subject
> >of the sentence. "It is I" is therefor incorrect.
>
> symmetrical. In other words, in "It is I" there are two subjects (OK, all you
> serious grammarians, I'm deliberately leaving complements out of the
> explanation.) one before and one after the verb.
>
> I am he.
> He is I.
>
> I am sad.
> Woe is me.
>
> It may seem strange to have "it" referring to a person, but that is what
> "Who is it?" does anyway. I have heard the construction "It is who?"
> usually with stress on the "who" as in "Paul McCartney is on the phone" -
> "It's who???"
Okay, troops, here we go again: "It is I" is indisputably the correct result
using traditional grammar. "It's me" is indisputably idiomatic English. The
French - and you can't get pickier about language than the French - say "c'est
moi" with impunity. So what's our problem?
If you want to sound like an idiomatic speaker of English, say "It's me." If
you want to impress someone with your grammatical erudition, say "It is I."
Whatever you do, as this thread proves, someone will come up with a reason to
criticize you and someone else will rise to your defense.
How about just using your name? as in "It is . . .
Bob Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com
Robert Lieblich
Albert Marshall
--
Albert Marshall
Colin Fine
In article <01bc3e69$1e259940$LocalHost@7610hva60236>, Raymond
<rc...@singnet.com.sg> writes
> Which is the correct answer to the following question?
>
>Question: "Who is it?"
>
>Answers:
>a) It's I. Steven.
>b) It's me. Steven.
>
>Majority of people use "it's me", and that makes me wonder why the pronoun
>"me" is used with "who" which is in the nominative case. It's like saying
>"me took your pen" as the answer to "Who took my pen?".
>Gee, I'm confused.
You're in good company. Most people are confused on questions like
these, because they know perfectly well how to speak their own language,
but there are a lot of self-styled authorities who keep telling them
they are wrong.
Not many people use 'whom' in speech nowadays. (I do, but not always).
Even fewer say 'it is I'.
Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' are wrong, is
wrong.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "Creative people love acknowledgement. |
| But they seldom manage to accept it." -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Barnes
In alt.usage.english, Colin Fine <co...@kindness.demon.co.uk> spake
thuswise:
>Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' are wrong, is
>wrong.
I agree, but I venture to suggest that "Anybody who tells you that 'It's
me' or 'Who do you want' are wrong, is wrong" is wrong. How about:
"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
is wrong."
- or -
"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
is wrong."
--
-- Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
-- If you post a response to Usenet, please *don't* send me a copy by e-mail.
Mark Brader
Colin Fine:
> > Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' are wrong,
> > is wrong.
Mike Barnes:
> I agree, but I venture to suggest that "Anybody who tells you that 'It's
> me' or 'Who do you want' are wrong, is wrong" is wrong. How about:
>
> "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
> is wrong."
>
> - or -
>
> "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
> is wrong."
I agree with both Colin and Mike, but I venture to suggest that "I agree,
but I venture to suggest that 'Anybody who tells you that "It's me" or
"Who do you want" are wrong, is wrong' is wrong." is wrong too. And
furthermore, "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want'
are wrong, is wrong." and "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who
do you want' *is* wrong, is wrong." are both wrong.
In each of the four cases, Colin and Mike should delete the comma before
the predicate "is wrong". In fact, when I saw Mike's posting, my first
assumption was that he was going to point out Colin's comma error; I
missed the grammatical fault myself.
(Now I just hope *I* haven't mispunctuated anything! Please keep in mind
that different styles exist for punctuation around quotation marks.)
--
Mark Brader | "'"'Tisn't very easy to tell if a '"' or ''' mark
m...@sq.com | is an opening or closing quote or ditto or prime,"
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | said Mark,' said 6'2" d'Artagnan," said Mark Brader.
My text in this article is in the public domain.
John M. Lawler
Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> very pointedly observes:
> Albert Marshall writes:
>> Peter Wolff <wol...@uni-muenster.de> writes
>>>If you answer the question "Who is it?" with a sentence that has does
>>>not use "It" but "I" as the subject, "I" is correct: "I am it." (sounds
>>>terrible!!!)
>>>If, however, you want to use the "It", then "I" is no longer the subject
>>>of the sentence. "It is I" is therefor incorrect.
>> The verb "to be" can never take an object because any use of it must be
>> symmetrical. In other words, in "It is I" there are two subjects (OK, all
>> you serious grammarians, I'm deliberately leaving complements out of
>> the explanation.) one before and one after the verb.
>> I am he.
>> He is I.
>> I am sad.
>> Woe is me.
>> It may seem strange to have "it" referring to a person, but that is what
>> "Who is it?" does anyway. I have heard the construction "It is who?"
>> usually with stress on the "who" as in "Paul McCartney is on the phone" -
>> "It's who???"
>Okay, troops, here we go again: "It is I" is indisputably the correct result
>using traditional grammar. "It's me" is indisputably idiomatic English. The
>French - and you can't get pickier about language than the French - say
>"c'est moi" with impunity. So what's our problem?
Our problem is that there is a lot of misinformation floating around,
and much of it's been canonized. Often by real canons.
>If you want to sound like an idiomatic speaker of English, say "It's me." If
>you want to impress someone with your grammatical erudition, say "It is I."
Right on. Except that I would change one word.
"If you want to impress someone with your *limited*
grammatical erudition, say "It is I".
The rules stated above about the use of "be" are, simply, wrong.
(Note: as an occasionally serious grammarian, I am also leaving
"complements", whatever they are supposed to refer to, out of the
question. "Complement" is a waste-basket term that is used to label
things that don't fit the grammarian's preconceptions, and covers a
multitude of very different constructions. Serious grammarians don't
use it much without qualification, and for the last 40 years or so it
hasn't been used much outside compounds like "Noun Phrase Complement"
(which refers to a clausal construction type, not a grammatical relation
or a pronoun). It tends to refer more to clauses than to words.)
One is at liberty to follow these erroneous rules in one's own speech and
observe the effects, of course, but they should not be foisted off on
unsuspecting others without warning them of the probable consequences.
The fact is, there are only 5 word pairs in the entire English language
where you could even apply the rules: he/him, I/me, we/us, they/them,
and who/whom. The last one is virtually dead, and the others are sick.
None of them follow these rules consistently in Modern English.
Face it, folks, there isn't any case system left. Rules based on The Way
It Used To Work In The Golden Age of Latin are romantic fantasies
concocted in English vicarages. If that's the way you want to talk, go
for it. But Modern English it's not.
>Whatever you do, as this thread proves, someone will come up with a reason
>to criticize you and someone else will rise to your defense.
I hope I'm only criticizing the erroneous rules which some people have
been erroneously taught; as if they'd been taught that the world is flat,
because the Romans believed it. People who are taught the wrong rules can
hardly be blamed for believing them. You're *supposed* to be able to
believe what you learn in school.
We now return you to the discussion, already in progress ...
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
BILLM...@delphi.com
Quoting MikeBarnes<mike from a message in alt.usage.english
>"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
>is wrong."
>- or -
>"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
>is wrong."
Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
Otherwise, you have separated the "is" from it subject. English,
normally doesn't do that.
John Davies
In article <5hubte$q...@lotho.delphi.com>, BILLM...@delphi.com writes
>I would reply either "It is I" or "It's me". I know "It's I"
>is considered correct, but it doesn't sound right, probably
>because I've almost never heard it.
"It is I" is a nonsensical invention of pedants who don't understand
that logic plays little part in correct usage.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
On that of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent. (Wittgenstein)
Adrian Tan
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Albert Marshall wrote:
[lotsa stuff snipped]
> > The verb "to be" can never take an object because any use of it must be
> > symmetrical. In other words, in "It is I" there are two subjects (OK, all you
> > serious grammarians, I'm deliberately leaving complements out of the
> > explanation.) one before and one after the verb.
> >
> > I am he.
> > He is I.
> >
> > I am sad.
> > Woe is me.
[snip]
> Okay, troops, here we go again: "It is I" is indisputably the correct result
> using traditional grammar. "It's me" is indisputably idiomatic English. The
[snip]
I suppose "woe is me" is not a case of "subject, copula, complement" --
after all, literally it doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps it's
ellipsis for or the developed form of "woe is upon me", "woe is unto
me", "woe is for me", or something like that.
Duncan McKenzie
BILLM...@delphi.com wrote in article <5i3jkf$r...@lotho.delphi.com>...
> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are
wrong,
> >is wrong."
> >- or -
> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is*
wrong,
> >is wrong."
> Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
> Otherwise, you have separated the "is" from it subject. English,
> normally doesn't do that.
Or add one before the conjunction. Picky PICK-Y picky.
Duncan McKenzie
Toronto, Canada
Don Stewart
(John M. Lawler) wrote:
> The fact is, there are only 5 word pairs in the entire English language
> where you could even apply the rules: he/him, I/me, we/us, they/them,
> and who/whom.
Why did you omit she/her?
Don
--
"The angel is the shark well governed"--Herman Melville
Albert Marshall
In article <3344ED...@usyd.edu.au>, Adrian Tan
<as...@usyd.edu.au> writes
I wondered how long it would take someone to comment on that bit - it
doesn't make much sense to me either!
--
Albert Marshall
Mike Barnes
In alt.usage.english, BILLM...@delphi.com spake thuswise:
>
>Quoting MikeBarnes<mike from a message in alt.usage.english
> >is wrong."
> >- or -
> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
> >is wrong."
>
>Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
>Otherwise, you have separated the "is" from it subject.
Actually I find Colin Fine's comma (which I was merely reproducing
without comment) perfectly acceptable. I feel no desire, let alone any
"need", to remove it.
John Cowan
BILLM...@delphi.com wrote:
>
> Quoting MikeBarnes<mike from a message in alt.usage.english
> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
> >is wrong."
> >- or -
> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
> >is wrong."
>
> Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
> normally doesn't do that.
Naah. This comma is merely rhetorical punctuation, and quite
defensible at that, since the stutter "is wrong is wrong" demands
a spacing of some sort to prevent it from being misheard.
Doubters should read the discussion in Follet/Barzun about
rhetorical vs. structural punctuation. His (their?) central
example is
"the old, and to his generation lost, liberator" (rhetorical)
"the old and, to his generation, lost liberator" (structural)
Both are defensible, and in sentences with extremely heavyweight
NPs and short VPs, the comma may look downright obligatory:
Whoever wishes to be a member of the League of Red-Headed Men
and is qualified for membership, can be.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban
colf...@minn.net
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:05:01 +0100, Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk>
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, BILLM...@delphi.com spake thuswise:
>>
>>Quoting MikeBarnes<mike from a message in alt.usage.english
>> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
>> >is wrong."
>> >- or -
>> >"Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
>> >is wrong."
>>
>>Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
>>Otherwise, you have separated the "is" from it subject.
>
>Actually I find Colin Fine's comma (which I was merely reproducing
>without comment) perfectly acceptable. I feel no desire, let alone any
>"need", to remove it.
"The Chicago Manual of Style" (sorry, I haven't figured out how to
underline), 14th ed., says:
5.64 For ease of reading, it is sometimes desirable to separate two
identical or closely similar words with a comma, even though the sense
or grammatical construction does not require such separation.
It seems to me that this could reasonably be extended to cover the
construction "is wrong, is wrong."
Carol from Mpls.
Robert R. Koblish
Let me point out the parallel in French: They say "c'est moi", not
"c'est je".
--
regards
-rrk
To reply, remove the leading X in my return address.
wo...@rbaf.demon.co.uk
>"The Chicago Manual of Style" (sorry, I haven't figured out how to
>underline), 14th ed., says:
>
>5.64 For ease of reading, it is sometimes desirable to separate two
>identical or closely similar words with a comma, even though the sense
>or grammatical construction does not require such separation.
>
>It seems to me that this could reasonably be extended to cover the
>construction "is wrong, is wrong."
Seems unexceptionable to me, as well. I tend to regard it as a written
representation of a spoken pause which does seem necessary in this
case.
Regards, \/\/oof
John M. Lawler
In article <E8AB0...@nonexistent.com>,
(I usually edit out article numbers,
but I think this one captures the spirit of Usenet. -jl)
>John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> writes:
>BILLM...@delphi.com writes:
>> Quoting MikeBarnes<mike from a message in alt.usage.english
> "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' *and* 'Who do you want' are wrong,
> is wrong."
> - or -
> "Anybody who tells you that 'It's me' or 'Who do you want' *is* wrong,
> is wrong."
>> Mike, you need to remove the comma in each of those sentences.
>> Otherwise, you have separated the "is" from it subject. English,
>> normally doesn't do that.
>Naah. This comma is merely rhetorical punctuation, and quite
>defensible at that, since the stutter "is wrong is wrong" demands
>a spacing of some sort to prevent it from being misheard.
>Doubters should read the discussion in Follet/Barzun about
>rhetorical vs. structural punctuation. His (their?) central
>example is
> "the old, and to his generation lost, liberator" (rhetorical)
> "the old and, to his generation, lost liberator" (structural)
>Both are defensible, and in sentences with extremely heavyweight
>NPs and short VPs, the comma may look downright obligatory:
> Whoever wishes to be a member of the League of Red-Headed Men
> and is qualified for membership, can be.
You're quite correct that both commatizations are defensible, but
I'd argue that they both proceed from the difference in intonation
that commas usually record. The liberator NPs above would play
differently on my Inner Ear, with comma dips where the commas are,
and each version has a slightly different focus, with different
caveant.
In the case of the "rhetorical" liberator, the comma dips are used to
frame one phrase for focus; in the "structural" case, they're used to
frame a different one. The second case happens to frame a syntactic
constituent; the first doesn't. But syntactic constituents usually
demarcate significant elements, and therefore will pop up frequently, so
it's no surpise that they're common, and that some people have learned the
erroneous rule that commas *must* delimit syntax, just because they often
do.
As you point out, by using "misheard" above, we would probably demarcate
the phrases in speech with some variety of comma dip, so the comma rule is
very simple -- commatize in writing only where you would dip in speech.
Distinctions about structure vs rhetoric belong to the area of
*motivation* for dipping or commatizing -- what speakers intend by
demarcating different chunks of speech -- and don't have much to do with
the actual marking rule itself, which is pretty automatic in speech, and
transfers over nicely to writing.
For more about commas and related topics, see:
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/comma.html
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/commas.html
Rhiannon Macfie
Robert R. Koblish put quill to parchment and scratchily scribed:
> Let me point out the parallel in French: They say "c'est moi", not
> "c'est je".
Although apparently this is fairly recent, and at the begining of
the century the usual form was 'ce suis je'.
Rhiannon
--
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~rhi ENTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My disk space is valuable. I therefore charge a handling fee for any
unsolicited commercial email I receive. See my conditions at
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~rhi/conditions.html for further details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don`t need gloves. I`m going to dissect this rat with my bare hands."
Anno Siegel
John M. Lawler <jla...@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu> wrote on alt.usage.english:
[lots snipped to get to the tangent I want to go off on]
>...and each version has a slightly different focus, with different
>caveant.
At first sight I liked this Latinate plural of "caveat", which I don't
think I've seen before. On second thought, I think it pluralizes the
wrong thing. "Caveat", if my rusty Latin serves, is actually a verb
form, meaning "may she be on her guard". Forming the plural, "caveant",
gets us to "may they be on their guard", that is, we pluralize the
agent of the being-on-guard. Since the word is being used as an English
noun, this is not really what we want.
I think I'll stick with "caveats".
Anno
PS: Oh, and here is a case where singular "they" wouldn't have helped
to make the translation of "caveat" gender-neutral. Translating "may
they be on their guard" would have blurred the distinction i was going
to make.
Anno Siegel
Anno
PPS: My spell-checker hasn't heard of "caveant" either. It suggested
"cave ant" instead. Troglodyte Formicidae?