![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"It's me", or "It's I"
There is something of a grammarian argument about whether the correct sentence is "It is me" or "It is I". I argue that "It is I" is completely artificial, is not spoken naturally by native speakers of English who aren't specifically taught the rule, and is just plain wrong.
English has only three noun cases, basically. In Latin, for instance, there's a difference between the subjective and the nominative case; in English, they're the same. Basically, we've got subjective/nominative, objective/accusative/dative, and possessive/genitive. There are some weirdnesses -- possessives can be inflected, as in "my/mine", but, in general, modern English is somewhat simpler than middle English, and WAY simpler than Old English.
One of the most basic and common sentence orders in English SVO -- subject, verb, object, and "It is me/I" would appear to fall into that category.
The counterargument is that "is" is a special case, and that a sentence in which the verb is "to be" actually links two subjects, and therefore is SVS. It's hard to tell whether this is true or not, because, in most cases in English, the subjective and the objective cases are identical. If I say, "That car is a total junker," "a total junker" can be either a subject or an object: "A total junker drove up the street," and "The tow truck towed the total junker." The only place where English still has clear subjective and objective distinctions in our pronouns. So I was trying to put together a list of things using pronouns and "is" to see which work. We know that the first one is going to be subjective, but let's see how the second one works in subjective and objective cases.
"You" and "it" are useless for this purpose, because they're the same in subjective and objective in modern English. So we've got I/me", "we/us", "he/him", "she/her", "they/them", "who/whom".
I am I. I am me.
I am he. I am him. I am she. I am her.
I am who? I am whom?
We are they. We are them.
We are who? We are whom?
She is I. She is me. He is I. He is me.
She is who? She is whom? He is who? He is whom?
They are we. They are us.
They are who? They are whom?
So far, I'm comfortable claiming the objective form as being better. But now the wheels come off of my argument:
Who am I? Who is me?
Who is he? Who is him? Who is she? Who is her?
Who are they? Who are them?
Who are we? Who are us?
Who are who? Who are whom?
In other tenses: Who will I be? Who will me be? Who was I? Who was me?
So... what do we learn here? There is clearly SOME irregularity here. "Who is" clearly takes the subjective case. But does that mean that "to be" takes the subjective case in those other instances, too?
Edited to add: My question is only secondarily "which is correct between 'it's me' and 'it's I'?" My primary question is why? Is there a general rule about the nature of "to be" in English that we can determine? Is the entire thing deduced from the "who" cases, which are the only ones which are absolutely clear -- is the rule a back formation from "who am I?" I mean, we've got a chain of logic that goes "who is he", therefore "he is he", therefore "it is he", therefore "it is I". Is that the regularization? If so, why does it break down in natural speech? Grammars have rules, and those rules are understood at a subconscious level by native speakers of the language. Grammarians deduce those rules, by dissecting spoken and written language, and extract and document them.
That makes edge cases interesting. And we're looking at an edge case here, which gives us a chance to look at what there is, what there was, what is changing. Where does the distinction between "who is he" and "it is him" come in, historically? Is there a transition period? Was the "who" formulation always an exception, and is the "it is he" formulation an artificial back formation, or is THAT the older formulation, and the "it is him" formulation is because nouns don't usually have different subjective and objective forms, and therefore people just started treating "is" like any other verb?
For that matter, and this is one that will probably NEVER be answered in ANY language, why is "is" so damn weird? I mean, it seems like it USUALLY is a weird, exceptional word. Some languages, like ancient Hebrew, don't even HAVE it. Others, like English and Latin, have completely bizarre conjugations -- "be", "is", and "was" have no obvious similarities, nor do "sum", "est", and "fui". When you look at just how bizarre "is" is, it DOES seem plausible that it would be the only verb in the entire language to take two subjects rather than a subject and an object...
English has only three noun cases, basically. In Latin, for instance, there's a difference between the subjective and the nominative case; in English, they're the same. Basically, we've got subjective/nominative, objective/accusative/dative, and possessive/genitive. There are some weirdnesses -- possessives can be inflected, as in "my/mine", but, in general, modern English is somewhat simpler than middle English, and WAY simpler than Old English.
One of the most basic and common sentence orders in English SVO -- subject, verb, object, and "It is me/I" would appear to fall into that category.
The counterargument is that "is" is a special case, and that a sentence in which the verb is "to be" actually links two subjects, and therefore is SVS. It's hard to tell whether this is true or not, because, in most cases in English, the subjective and the objective cases are identical. If I say, "That car is a total junker," "a total junker" can be either a subject or an object: "A total junker drove up the street," and "The tow truck towed the total junker." The only place where English still has clear subjective and objective distinctions in our pronouns. So I was trying to put together a list of things using pronouns and "is" to see which work. We know that the first one is going to be subjective, but let's see how the second one works in subjective and objective cases.
"You" and "it" are useless for this purpose, because they're the same in subjective and objective in modern English. So we've got I/me", "we/us", "he/him", "she/her", "they/them", "who/whom".
I am I. I am me.
I am he. I am him. I am she. I am her.
I am who? I am whom?
We are they. We are them.
We are who? We are whom?
She is I. She is me. He is I. He is me.
She is who? She is whom? He is who? He is whom?
They are we. They are us.
They are who? They are whom?
So far, I'm comfortable claiming the objective form as being better. But now the wheels come off of my argument:
Who am I? Who is me?
Who is he? Who is him? Who is she? Who is her?
Who are they? Who are them?
Who are we? Who are us?
Who are who? Who are whom?
In other tenses: Who will I be? Who will me be? Who was I? Who was me?
So... what do we learn here? There is clearly SOME irregularity here. "Who is" clearly takes the subjective case. But does that mean that "to be" takes the subjective case in those other instances, too?
Edited to add: My question is only secondarily "which is correct between 'it's me' and 'it's I'?" My primary question is why? Is there a general rule about the nature of "to be" in English that we can determine? Is the entire thing deduced from the "who" cases, which are the only ones which are absolutely clear -- is the rule a back formation from "who am I?" I mean, we've got a chain of logic that goes "who is he", therefore "he is he", therefore "it is he", therefore "it is I". Is that the regularization? If so, why does it break down in natural speech? Grammars have rules, and those rules are understood at a subconscious level by native speakers of the language. Grammarians deduce those rules, by dissecting spoken and written language, and extract and document them.
That makes edge cases interesting. And we're looking at an edge case here, which gives us a chance to look at what there is, what there was, what is changing. Where does the distinction between "who is he" and "it is him" come in, historically? Is there a transition period? Was the "who" formulation always an exception, and is the "it is he" formulation an artificial back formation, or is THAT the older formulation, and the "it is him" formulation is because nouns don't usually have different subjective and objective forms, and therefore people just started treating "is" like any other verb?
For that matter, and this is one that will probably NEVER be answered in ANY language, why is "is" so damn weird? I mean, it seems like it USUALLY is a weird, exceptional word. Some languages, like ancient Hebrew, don't even HAVE it. Others, like English and Latin, have completely bizarre conjugations -- "be", "is", and "was" have no obvious similarities, nor do "sum", "est", and "fui". When you look at just how bizarre "is" is, it DOES seem plausible that it would be the only verb in the entire language to take two subjects rather than a subject and an object...
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-11-08 01:13 am (UTC)(link)(from fnordy)
no subject
My opinion (that and 5 bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks) is that "It's me" is currently acceptable, due to the natural changes in our language. When I was in school in the 1950s however, we were taught that one should not use contractions (is that the right word?), when it was obvious that that use was due to a lazy mind. [Ahhhhh... them wuz the dazes!]
We were given a general rule regarding when to use "me" or "I'. We should ask ourselves which seemed more correct:
"Who stole the apple from off of my desk?"
"It is I. I am the guilty one."
"It is me. Me am the guilty one."
Here again however, currently saying "It's me. I did it", seems the most common. Language is in flux. :o)
no subject
"It was me."
----------------------
"Whom shall I thank for removing that bottle of domestic champagne?"
"It is I."
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
'It's me' (informal) or 'It is I' (formal, almost theatrical) both ring true.
no subject
Some have suggested that the verb to be and all its forms should not be used and they have invented a new language called E-prime which has rules to avoid the use of 'to be'.
http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/GeneralSemantics/
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-11-08 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)no subject