“This is she” vs. “This is her”

In Russia we use IT IS ME more often than IT IS I.

Dang! The name of home before dark disappeared out of my posting, to wit: ". . . waving to home before dark in Lawrence, Kansas . . ."

But in so doing, you don't inform the caller of your identity. "Yes" merely means that the caller may, indeed, speak to the asked for person. Of course, one can choose to melodically intone, "Yes. This is Cruella, Cruella Deville," or whatever, making one's self known by name. However, if a pronoun is used, "she/he," the nominative case pronoun, is correct.

The militant grammarian is waving to in Lawrence, Kansas, a picture perfect small town I love and know well. When passing through, I eat at Tellers, since they tarted up the charming old Free State Hotel, which has been called the Eldridge in recent years. Academician? I'm in the greater St. Louis area.

Why not just answer the question?

Usually when you're answering the phone somebody asked the question, "May [or more casually, 'can'] I speak to so-and-so?"
So and so: "Yes."

GUYS! lets analyze... THIS, THAT, THESE, THOSE are demonstrative pronoun... SHE, IT, HE, THEY WE, are subjective pronouns..REMEMBER! IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR: there's always and exception to the rule. on a telephone conversation... the caller doesn't know who he/she is talking/speaking with...then asks for a specific name... ex. "May I speak to Roy?"... luckily, Roy is the one speaking... since there is a medium being used...Roy informs the caller that he is already speaking to Roy. " This is he" means this is Roy, but since the one speaking is Roy, it is considered to be the first person, using the 3rd person pronoun and not a receiver of the action. This - demonstrative pronoun, is - linking verb, Roy - noun if reversed could still be the subject of the sentence and not an object. "This is/ That's him/her" would be right if your mean another person as the object of the sentence or the one being talked about...

I always answer the phone at work with "This is she". While I just heard my co-worker used "This is her".

I don't think "This is her" makes sense because I am left feeling this is her ...what? Her sister, nanny?

"This is she" is one of the correct answers. You can also say "This is Abby".

Here's the quandary that brought me to this site:
'No one could entertain like her and Ed.'
vs
'No one could entertain like she and Ed.'
I find that the easiest way to know which is grammatically correct is to add a word or phrase, and subtract a word or phrase.
'No one could entertain like her could entertain.'
'No one could entertain like she could entertain.'

Clearly, I'm going with 'she' over 'her', no matter how 'snobby' it may sound to others. As to whether the choice of 'she' vs 'her' will cause the Earth to slip off its axis, I'm fairly certain it will not. Using 'proper' English grammar is not, however, a waste of time, or evidence of snobbery. It's a conscious effort to retain some order in a formal language, which (imho) is a mark of a civilised society. A 'breakdown' in such formal order is not always a good thing. Reducing to the most common denominator might work in arithmetic; but in society - not so very much, I think.

Beverly Sutton Lawrence
'What the World needs now are MORE SQUIRRELS! Then, there would be fewer NUTS running around, loose! (or running for public office!)'

I googled "this is she" after reading HP's list of offending grammatical mistakes. Had no idea all of you "militant grammarians" were encamped on this website. What fun! I had been taught that "This is she" is the correct usage. Agree that is doesn't "sound right." However at 60, I have to say I'll go deaf before "Him and me are going out" sounds right either. Being a bit of a mugwamp here, I think the best advice is to waffle: "speaking" seems to fit the bill without having to make a choice to get it wrong, to offend, or sound like a pompous arse.

p.s. To stark, raving, and clearly mad Marilyn, I love your story, your style, your spunk. I am in Lawrence, Ks. I know know fly-zone very well.

I just like "This is she," more. ;)

I love that people keep asking about the grammatical correctness of idiomatic expressions. Is it correct to say 'can't be beat?' Um, it's an idiom. The point is not whether it's grammatically correct. The point is: This is what people say. It's an expression in common usage and any question of the rules related to the expression is (as far as I'm concerned) moot.

In the same way, we could ask whether 'This is her' is correct. Well, no - it's not (based on the preponderance of evidence and opinion gathered here). But as a perfectly understandable response to a telephoned question, it seems a little silly that anyone would worry about it.

I guess it's true that certain constructions (and even idioms) in common usage are rotten to their core. I'd argue, in fact, that John's now infamous "My friend and me are going out later" (or something like that) is totally unacceptable. If I heard someone say this I would be awfully tempted to suggest an alternative construction. It sounds terrible to my ears, but that's just me. (Or is it 'That's just I?')

That said...I'm a total geek for this stuff and love the passion that people bring to such a wonky conversation. Fight on, militant grammarians!

John has pegged the issue pretty well, and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage agrees. Their conclusion, which they quote from another source, is this:

"Many people use "lay" for "lie," but certain others will judge you uncultured if you do. Decide for yourself what is best for you."

The intransitive use of "lay" was on the decline at the same time that grammarians were ascendant. Since only the educated studied grammar, lay v. lie became a marker beyond importance.

This is not to say that conventional standards of usage are irrelevant. Here I agree with Marilyn. Understanding standard usage and its rules is vital. But grammatical rules are not commandments. Ordinary speech, or writing, should usually follow precept. Once understood, rules may be tested, even flouted, if to the advantage of meaning.

I'd be wary of trusting Elements of Style. The books written as advice for college students in writing essays. Nowadays it is marketed to all writers, but the content hasn't been updated consistently.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/frankenstrunk/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/theword/2008/09/return_of_the_l.html

Oh, and thanks, John. I was just about to post "where is John the linguist when we need him?":) (assuming, of course, you're the same John)

Probably some usage writers feel that "ain't" isn't worth bothering about, and they may, indeed, be right. I guess I'm back to the old "isn't the discussion of such what the site is about anyway?" And not ALL of any group agrees about anything, at least not usually. Total consensus? Maybe when we've gone to sing with the choir invisible. However, on this point, most usage writers agree, including Strunk and White, to list only one. The bottom line is that if using certain forms of speech, and here I'm not discussing any particular example, can cause one a problem professionally or personally, it's best to avoid it at least in formal situations and stick to what's generally accepted as standard, whatever that is. It's a question of covering one's metaphorical ass, or "feet" for that matter.

Marilyn, I believe you are under a misconception. Regarding your statement: "... But this is a forum on correct grammar and usage as dictated by the rules, such as they are...", nothing could be further from the truth.

This is from the "about us" page of this very website: "...because the experts can never agree with one another...PainInTheEnglish.com encourages discussions of such gray areas of the English language, for which you would not find answers easily in dictionaries and other reference books..."

You will find many debates on this site between strict prescriptivists and studied linguistics descriptivists, sometimes inspired, sometimes tedious, but usually interesting. Yes, often someone studying ESL is obviously looking for the "rule" and instead gets a less than useful digression into the social implications of judging regionalisms or growing acceptance of subject-verb case mismatch, but the point is, this site is not about rules, but encouraging interesting discussions and debates we might all learn from.

“Lay” has been used intransitively to mean “lie” since 1300. No one really cared about it until Baker in 1770, who decided that this was wrong, and who formulated the modern prescriptive judgments about “lay” and “lie”. Some more recent usage writers have decided that the distinction is not worth defending. Again, I have to wonder where Marilyn's rules of "strictly formal English" come from, if not from the opinions of usage writers and educated speakers, not all of whom agree on this issue.

Language Log gives some unhelpful advice: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000877.html

Douglas said,

"Really Marilyn? That old canard? I'm loath to cock a snook at even so learned a maven as you, but "lay versus lie" is not so much a grammatical issue as a social one."

Well, Douglas, as I understand it, it's not a grammatical issue, but one of diction, the wrong word being used. "Grammar cops with a social agenda?" If that were entirely true, then this website would seem of no point whatsoever, though I suppose there is a social agenda. I am only a second generation American. All four of my grandparents, two maids, a slightly alcoholic mason, and a baker, were immigrants who spoke accented English with greater or lesser facility in grammar to the ends of their days. All four came from peasant families, and I'm proud of that and them. My father, who spoke very good but not perfect English, a very rare thing in my experience, told me that his teachers insisted that all the children speak grammatically, no matter what they heard at home. The parents, a the mixed bag of Germans, Italians, Poles, and so forth, all insisted on the same point. It was seen, and still is, one form of social betterment. Eliza Doolittle knew that she needed to speak more correctly to be a lady in a flower shop. My father, by the way, had one semester of college when his father died. He then quit and got a job to support his mother and a sister still at home, and later, another widowed sister and her five children. I was the first college graduate in my family on either side. My background is not privileged.

As I said before, in some contexts, formal English is the coin of the realm. We don't often hear our physicians say to their nurses, "I ain't got no pencil." Egregious errors are a signal of various things that are usually a stumbling block to a successful life, not that lay vs lie is egregious. An example in point is that once I was on the phone calling a company with a complaint and asked to speak to the manager. In such situations, anyone below that level can't make decisions. One is being vetted, and one's time is wasted explaining the same thing multiple times. The woman to whom I was speaking claimed that she was the manager. I knew she wasn't simply by the way she spoke and again insisted on speaking to the manager. She wasn't pleased, but in the end, I got the manager, who spoke far better than the original woman. I'd been correct. For better or worse, this is what happens.

And as for its being an "old canard," that duck is not really enchained and still flies in testing instruments, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, and certainly until death, in the probably not foreseeable future, us do part. "The simple rule is generally this: "lie" is for people, "lay" is for things. (Easy to remember: many people lie.)" Not entirely, since you can "lay the baby in the bed" or "lay your body down": "Now I lay me down to sleep." For that matter, once you have "laid" your books on the table, they are "lying" there. Porsche is correct in this matter. Lay [lay, laid, have laid, laying] means to put or place. Lie [lie, lay, have lain, lying] means to recline/rest horizontally. The problem lies [thing, not person, but it "lies"] with "lay" and "lain" as the past and past participle of "lie." They go virtually unused, except by the few. And the reason I put "educated" in quotation marks? The vast majority of the educated misuse these verbs, according to standards of strictly formal English as well, just like everyone else. And yes, I do know that forms of "lay" have been used for forms of "lie" for half of forever. But this is a forum on correct grammar and usage as dictated by the rules, such as they are, and for strictly formal English, it isn't correct. "The conflict between oral use and school instruction has resulted in the distinction becoming a social shibboleth – a marker of class and education." Did you or do you, in the raising of your children, insist that they speak correctly? Why? Do they say, "Dad, I ain't got no pencil"? Had they ever said precisely that, how would you have replied? The "lay" vs "lie" difference is one of degree rather than kind in the discussion of "ain't." Same church different pew. Danged picky pew, but even so, Douglas, even so.

"I know what you're thinking: educated people talk good." Not all of 'em, sweetie. Not nearly all of 'em, and for reasons I won't broach here. And for that matter, some self-educated folks speak beautifully. "Ergo people lie and things lay." Once again, not in all cases. Nope. Not nearly all. "No, language is created, nurtured and cultivated by poor slobs who wouldn't know an intransitive verb if it gave them a bus transfer, bless 'em." With that, I can only agree. "And yes, I know exactly how snobbish that sounds." Not "hobknobbish"? Oh! And cocked snooks are all the rage in some places. Cock away. I quite enjoy snooks, cocked or otherwise. In fact, they often make my day. "Lay [not lie] on, Macduff!" On that note, have a pleasant evening or morning, or whatever it is there. I'm in the Midwest, in a blob of humanity in the great fly-over zone.

I won't assert that it is always followed, but the prescriptive rule is that "lie" is intransitive and "lay" is transitive. As for the bit about "'lie' is for people, 'lay' is for things",well, I would not classify that as a general rule. It doesn't represent common usage, nor is it any kind of accepted prescriptive rule. Frankly, it doesn't even make much sense. I'd group it with other grammar myths like the prohibition on dangling prepositions.

Of course, it only adds to the confusion that the past tense of "lie" is "lay". Just for fun, it's "lie, lay, lain", to include the past participle, and, to compare, "lay, laid, laid."

Really Marilyn? That old canard? I'm loath to cock a snook at even so learned a maven as you, but "lay versus lie" is not so much a grammatical issue as a social one.

I presume you are alluding to the widespread taboo on using "lay" intransitively for "lie." The simple rule is generally this: "lie" is for people, "lay" is for things. (Easy to remember: many people lie.) But whence the distinction? I'll tell you whence: from long dead grammar cops with a social agenda. You de-bag the cat yourself when you quotationize "educated." For "lay" and "lie" have long been in the same bed.

Evidence, you say? OK. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage:

"The OED shows that "lay" has been used intransitively in the sense of "lie" since around the year 1300."

Which should, but won't, lay the issue to rest. There is more. M-W also says:

"The conflict between oral use and school instruction has resulted in the distinction becoming a social shibboleth – a marker of class and education."

I know what you're thinking: educated people talk good. Ergo people lie and things lay. But "educated" people didn't create English, or any language, except Esperanto. And when did anyone last converse in that flat tongue? No, language is created, nurtured and cultivated by poor slobs who wouldn't know an intransitive verb if it gave them a bus transfer, bless 'em.

And yes, I know exactly how snobbish that sounds.

"Lay" has been used intransitively to mean "lie" since 1300. No one really cared about it until Baker in 1770, who decided that this was wrong, and who formulated the modern prescriptive judgments about "lay" and "lie". Some more recent usage writers have decided that the distinction is not worth defending.

Language Log gives some unhelpful advice: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000877.html

Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PP1&dq=Merriam%20Webster's%20Dictionary%20of%20English%20Usage&pg=PA586#v=onepage&q=lay,%20lie&f=false

Anyone interested in taking on forms of the verbs "lay" and "lie," two of the most frequently misused verbs by the "educated"?

Your point is well made, and I quite agree. To me, it is sad that those meanings are lost. I gave only one example. I fully realize that semantic change happens, and we can use the words we choose as we choose. However, for the common man, when words are used in a sense no longer in the common parlance, understanding fails. For me, the language is the poorer for the loss. As I mentioned previously, probably a surfeit of very old literature on my part, but I like those words, and it's harder and harder for me to use them and be understood. Lackaday, I most thole it. O.K. I'm not quite THAT archaic. I enjoy writing to you John. U er definitely dite, and it appears that we have entertainment value.
M.

I looked up "gay" in the OED. Here is a selection of meanings that the word has had at one time or another:
Noble; beautiful; excellent, fine.
Bright or lively-looking, esp. in colour; brilliant, showy.
Of persons, their attributes, actions, etc.: light-hearted, carefree; manifesting, characterized by, or disposed to joy and mirth; exuberantly cheerful, merry; sportive. Also in extended use.
Of a horse: lively, prancing.
the gay science n. the art of poetry
Wanton, lewd, lascivious.
Of words or speech: brilliant, attractive, charming.
U.S. Amongst the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) or other (esp. nonconformist) religious groups: denoting a person who has ceased adhering to the plain and simple life or beliefs of the community; worldly. Esp. in gay Quaker, to go gay.
Brit. regional. In good health; well, convalescent.
U.S. slang. Forward, impertinent, too free in conduct, over-familiar; reckless; usually in to get gay.
A noble or beautiful lady.
A childish amusement; a trifle, a whim.
gay cat n. U.S. slang a young or inexperienced tramp, esp. one who acts as a scout; a hobo who accepts occasional work.

We could say that it's sad that "gay" has lost the meaning of "light-hearted", but why isn't it sad that it has lost all these other meanings as well?

This word has gone through normal processes of semantic change, something that happens to all words. It's not sad, because we can still convey whatever meanings we want to convey, even if we don't use the same words that our ancestors used.

Here's a selection of meanings that the word "silly" has had:
Happy, blissful; fortunate, lucky, well-omened, auspicious
Spiritually blessed, enjoying the blessing of God
Pious, holy, good
Innocent, harmless
Deserving of pity or sympathy; pitiable, miserable, ‘poor’; helpless, defenceless
Insignificant, trifling; mean, poor; feeble
Frail, worn-out, crazy
Foolish, simple, silly

Come to think of it, what goes on here is "hobknobbery" [sic] of a sort, though I'm fairly certain that wasn't the original intent of the remark.

Oooooooo, Douglas, love your use of the word "mad"! It seems that John and I have become the pedantic website version of reality TV. And the original question -- something about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, wasn't it? No? Broca's area? Binomial nomenclature? Suggestions for dealing with Eeyore's depressive personality? Damned if I know. Reading back over all of that, I realize that I am only one of the grammar, vocabulary, and literature obsessed out there. It's been the continuing daytime drama of John and Marilyn. I'm charmed we proved to have some entertainment value. As to where we go from here, who knows? Possibly nowhere, and that's dandy too. But you know, had I been one of those seraphs, I'd have used two of my wings to cover my . . . ahhh, . . . "feet" too. But then again, John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Modesty is a vastly over-rated virtue." Hmmmmmm? Clearly not with seraphs. "Civility?" Yes. "Erudite?" Maybe u er dite, but I ain't. "And the beat goes on." Oh, and I'm still trying to "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" "hobknobbery."
signed,
stark, raving, and clearly mad, though not angry

This has been mad fun. John and Marilyn have engaged in the kind of meandering yet purposeful debate that makes this site worth reading, even if – or perhaps because – they have strayed so far from the original question that I can scarcely recall it. And all of this with civility and erudition. Kudos. And carry on.

Yes, and perhaps they were right, as the "feet" translators were not.

Yes the Biblical quote is a translation, but that's not really relevant. The point is that the translators apparently chose the word "mad" to mean "angry".

Well, for example 1, probably. For # 2, I could see the definition going either way. With the Biblical quote, it's a translation. There are ever theologians arguing about the correct translation of this or that. And then too, there are the seraphs with six wings, two of which, according to scripture, cover their "feet." Uh-huh! Translations are dicey.

Well here are some citations to demonstrate how old the "angry, irate, cross" meaning of "mad" is:

c1425 (?a1400) Arthur 234 Whan þis lettre was open & rad, þe Bretons & all men were mad And wolde þe messager scle

a1604 M. HANMER Chron. 125 in J. Ware Hist. Ireland (1633), Roderic was mad, and in his rage, caused his pledges head..to be cut off.

1611 Bible (A.V.) Acts xxvi. 11 And being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them euen vnto strange cities.

Well, I traced "stark mad," as in "completely mad" to John Skelton 1489, and that's with the modifier. The reference defines this as "completely insane." "Raving mad" comes in later, and finally "stark raving mad" even later. After all, there's Lewis Carroll and the Mad Hatter from the saying "mad as a hatter"; that's British for you. My understanding is that in the old days, hatters used chemicals in the hands-on making of hats/creating felt, the fumes of which had mind altering properties. Then there was the Madhouse Act at some point in Britain for dealing with insane asylums. I'm not suggesting that dictionaries have abandoned that definition, but that it is failing in the common parlance today. Neither do I suggest we don't communicate as well or that English is not as expressive, but just that for the average person, language is perhaps more circumscribed. Come to think of it, it always was, in that case. But what do I know. I may well be stark raving mad. Seems more and more likely.

"Yes, but the rage that accompanies madness."

The entry in the OED is "Angry, irate, cross. Also, in weakened sense: annoyed, exasperated". Citations are provided from 1400. I don't see a connection with insanity.

"It may be a fine point, but with mad now meaning only angry to most people, mad meaning insane is being lost"

There is no evidence of this. All dictionaries I checked list one of the meanings of "mad" as "insane".

The process you describe with "gay" has happened to every single word in English. Words are always losing meanings and gaining new ones. But I really don't think this means English has lost any expressiveness overall. If we really were losing meanings, then that would mean we can't communicate today as well as we could in some earlier golden age, and there's no evidence of this.

Yes, but the rage that accompanies madness. It may be a fine point, but with mad now meaning only angry to most people, mad meaning insane is being lost. I'm fine with the branching out of words, but meaning lost is another matter. Another example is the word "gay," which I have discussed with my gay friends. It's a charming word and can be used in many ways, but the meaning "light-hearted," as in "Our Hearts Were Young and Gay," [charming book, that] has been lost. It's sad, to me mind you, to see one meaning subsumed by the other. The language seems the poorer for lost meanings. I've probably read one to many 18th century picaresque novels with antiquated vocabulary and grammar. Errands to run. Later, John

Then I'm not sure what your point is. As for "mad"... there is nothing to give up. "Mad" has meant "angry" for 400 years.

Yes. I am aware of that.

"irritate vs aggravate, uninterested vs disinterested, and farther vs further"

These examples are all problematic. The complaints about these words are at best oversimplifications and at worst inaccurate. For instance, Merriam-Webster's usage note on uninterested/disinterested shows that the usage is much more complicated than the complainers want to believe. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinterested

Good to know. Thanks, John. I just checked several sources; some gave only one, and some gave both choices. When only one choice was listed, it was "beaten." And then too, there are always the differences between the American and British conventions, both of which have canons in their own contexts, though canon can change. As I said way way up there, language is a convention to aid communication and understanding. When it comes down to it, people can say whatever they choose and generally be understood. The question is: to what end? It would seem to me that anything which aids clearer communication is to the good, and conversely, anything which muddies the waters is, at best, problematic. At the risk of coming across as another version of 'Enry 'Iggins, better grammar is beneficial in that way, but clearly not to everyone in all cases. We're a mixed bag, we humans. For a long time, the pendulum swung toward more concise and correct speech. Now, possibly partially in the name of political correctness, the trend seems to be reversing. This is true with diction as well: irritate vs aggravate, uninterested vs disinterested, and farther vs further are good examples. I've given up on mad vs angry. I adamantly refuse to say I'm "mad," though God knows, it may be true. Bottom line: in some contexts, completely correct English is the coin of the realm. For those who find themselves in such a context, that arrow is still needed in the quiver.

"Beat" has two forms for the past participle: "beat" and "beaten". Both are standard. "Beat" is always used in the expression "cannot be beat"; "beaten" does not seem to be used in this phrase. (According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.)

As a colloquial expression, "cannot be beat" is used. However, "beat" is an irregular verb: present tense -- beat, simple past tense -- beat, past participle[with helping verbs]-- beaten. Therefore, grammatically it should be, "cannot be beaten." But hell's bells, fewer and fewer people seem to care, going for the lowest common denominator.

As a colloquial expression, "cannot be beat" is used. However, "beat" is an irregular verb: present tense -- beat, simple past tense -- beat, past participle[with helping verbs]-- beaten. Therefore, grammatically it should be, "cannot be beaten." But hell's bells, fewer and fewer people seem to care going for the lowest common denominator.

Is the expression "cannot be beat" correct?

Depends on the text, and on the standardized tests, only "It is she" is correct, due to the reasons stated above. However, down the road I descry a gent coming with the wagon from the glue factory. Old Dobbin has done his job and is headed off to pastures more green. Dead horse. I throw down the whip. I never was other than kind to animals anyway, and in this case, it's well nigh useless. Any suggestions on "hobknobbery"?

Yes, "this is she" is standard, and "this is her" is also standard. Even in grammar books you will find the opinion that "this is her" is correct.

My point about the triangle had to do with the "term" triangle. It, too, could have been called a Fred. I realize that the rules of mathematics are fixed, but the language could change, though that's rather unlikely. I further realize that the rules and usage of language have varied over the course of time and will continue in that wise. My point about "the powers that be" for grammar does not relate to the distant future or "a galaxy far far away." My point is that at this point in time, what I wrote holds true. At this point in time, "dems da rules"! Just as the term for that figure we term a triangle could change, "correct" usage can and will change. However, right now that figure IS called a triangle, and "This is she" IS standard usage. Still confused on "hobknobbery."

Marilyn Rowan:
"Why must a triangle be a figure three sides and three angles? The answer is the same as to why it’s, “This is she.” The answer is because, just that — because. At some point the powers that be came down upon that distinction."

There are no powers that be that decide what is proper English and what is not. English usage is not like math; there are no universal rules fixed for all time. The rules of English usage are made by the speakers. Sure, some people write books about English usage where they make pronouncements about what is right and wrong, but such pronouncements are simply opinions, and should always be considered in light of how the language is actually used.

Hmmmmm! Well, yes. The distinctions are or were at their formation, indeed, arbitrary; nonetheless, to say they make "no difference AT All," isn't quite true. Language, after all, is simply a convention in which we all agree to say the same thing in more or less the same way to promote understanding and clarity of communication. If I were to call a pencil a Fred, you might think I was a bit strange, and you might be right; however, if I did it long enough and consistently enough, you'd know what I meant when I said I needed a Fred. That's as opposed to my pen, here and after known as my Ethel. But back to the initial question -- the "This is she" vs "This is her." The whole discussion, as I understood it, was one of what is grammatically correct/standard English, as is tested by such instruments as the SAT, ACT, GRE, and so forth, not that such tests are the foundations upon which the universe rests. There are rules for what is termed standard English. Less erudite forms of speech still get the job done, but totally correct, as defined by the grammar books, they are not. That this isn't needed in all cases is very true. "This is she" is now considered colloquial, and "I be Jimmy" is considered simply "substandard," though there are many folks who speak in such a fashion. And I admit it: I have no trouble understanding, "I be Jimmy." It's not "incorrect" to say, "This is her" on the phone. One can speak as one chooses. The rule of what pronoun follows what sort of verb has only to do with what one says if totally standard English is the currency in that exchange. I had thought that the initial subject of the question was precisely that, not whether or not we're allowed to use colloquial speech. It's back to Fred and Ethel. Why must a triangle be a figure three sides and three angles? The answer is the same as to why it's, "This is she." The answer is because, just that -- because. At some point the powers that be came down upon that distinction. It was not I, but others. I have no problem with colloquial speech. But in an academic discussion of what is grammatically correct, I stand not on my opinion but upon that of Warriner's, Strunk and White, and other such authorities.
p.s. I'm confused by the "hobknobbery" remark and how it fits into the discussion. "Hobnobbery" is to associate with others in a familiar manner, to "hang around" with others.

Maybe when I meet someone (or read a book by someone) who can actually assert such authority as to choose which is correct in this context I'll be able to agree with anyone. All I see here is "sentence a is incorrect because ____ is a ___ verb" or some other such hobknobbery. WHY is it incorrect to say "this is her" on the phone just because it's incorrect to say it in some other context? How can we be so sure that just for this one time "her" functions as some unnamed chimera pronoun that can be an object and a subject and all kinds of fancy things all at the same time? The distinctions you make are completely arbitrary and to be pragmatic, make no difference at all. There is a marked distinction between "I be Jimmy" and "this is him"

By replying with 'speaking ' or ' this is he' or any of the other variants that have been suggested immediately puts ONE at a disadvantage. The caller knows it is the person they want to speak to. By asking who is calling gives you the chance to decide whether to take the call or not.

Just make things simple when someone asks, just say "Speaking!" There ya go, problem solved. ;)

I like to just say "Speaking" instead of either!
Easier and shorter :)

Answer "This is he (or she)" when you identify yourself on the telephone: Caller 1: "Is Lucy Peters there?" Caller 2: "This is she." ("She is this," not "Her is this.")

reference from: http://www.ehow.com/how_117260_fix-improper-pronouns.html

Totally and completely incorrect! Objects of the sentence/verb follow action verbs [mailed,talk,thought, did], not linking verbs [is, are, was]. The object of the verb answers the question "who" or what" after the verb. "She mailed the letter." "She mailed what?" The letter = the object. The object receives the action of the verb. When a pronoun follows a linking verb as in, "It is she," the verb is a linking verb, so the pronoun that follows is a predicate nominative. You need to be able to turn the sentence around, to wit: "It is she," and "She is it." If one says, "It is her," "Her is it" isn't going to fly. Now I admit that in common speech, most people say, "It is her." Totally correct and preferable speech is an ever more rare thing, for example, the use of the disappearing subjunctive. When incorrect speech has been around long enough, we tend to think it "correct"; whereas, it is simply accepted as such. "It is she" is formal, completely correct, and, therefore, standard English. Check a grammar text on line should you doubt this.

I never say, "Yes, this is him."

I usually say, "Yes, this is he."

I believe that sounds wrong to many ears and so I commonly use the alternative, "Yes, this is Dan"

Cannot this put an end to the entire controversy?

Woops!

"This is he"

Would one say "it is I" or "it is me"

I go with "it is I"

and therefore

"This is I"

In GB we supposedly speak the Queen's english ; HM would say ' my husband and I ' NOT me and my hubby. Would her reply to the question be 'this is I' ?

Oh goodness, we can beat this topic again and again, but for what? The way I see it, hell if the person understood what the heck you were saying, then by golly, by all means you've made your point! =D

One is 'Blink' by Gladwell. ,