Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with a passion. Learn More

Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with a passion. Learn More

“This is she” vs. “This is her”

A common example is the phrase “This is she.” used to answer a telephone. ‘She’ is the nominative form of the word, so it cannot be used to describe somebody who is the object of a sentence (in this example, ‘this’ would be the subject). The correct way to phrase the example would be “This is her.”, though most people prefer the familiar businesslike shorthand “Speaking.”

See suite101.com.

From another site, this was the response:

“This is she” is grammatically correct. The verb “to be” acts as a linking verb, equating subject and object. So this is she and she is this; “she” and “this” are one and the same, interchangeable, and to be truly interchangeable they must both play the same grammatical role—that of the subject.

See press.uchicago.edu

I am quite confused! I believe “This is her” is correct because it is understood that “speaking” is simply omitted; thus, we know the speaker is implying “This is her speaking” when she answers “This is her.” After all, we ask to speak to her. When she answers that she’s the one who had answered the call, she’s (obviously) speaking at the time. Therefore, it is her speaking.

What is your opinion on the matter?

Submit Your Comment

or fill in the name and email fields below:

Comments

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 568:

"Clearly, both the it is I and It's me patterns are in reputable use and have been for a considerable time. It is I tends to be used in more formal or more stuffy situations; it's me predominates in real and fictional speech and in a more relaxed writing style. Him, her, us, and them my be less common after the verb to be than me is, but they are far from rare and are equally good."

John_Anderson Feb-25-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Actually, John, Abby Normal's analogy with speed limit rules is right on target. You failure to see the clarity of the analogy goes directly to her opening suggestion: as you take the stance of a linguist (observer) rather than grammarian (prescriber), then your opinions and viewpoints are irrelevant -- and in fact distracting -- in any discussion of what is CORRECT. So if the query is "which is correct", your response is not germaine.

By the way, I love your user name, Abby!

amazed Feb-25-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Thanks AO, for being another voice of reason here.

I find it incredible that in anything other field, scientific enquiry is respected. But when it comes to language, if we look at the evidence - that is, how the language is actually used - we're either ignored or insulted.

John4 Apr-17-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Does the use of "this is her" instead of "this is she" obscure, or create any confusion about, the intended meaning?

No?

Then why does it matter if "her" is used rather than "she"?

JJMBallantyne Apr-22-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

THIS IS SHE/HE the end

tilk Jul-22-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

I've always said "this is she" on the phone, because my mother taught me to say it this way. Now, so many say "this is her" that "this is she" sounds funny and wrong. Slang expressions and spellings are overwhelming the English language these days anyway. E-mail and the Internet are making changes faster than in the past. The whole point in having language is for communication. Are we going to become better communicators as the world gets smaller? Do the rules from the past still apply, or do the rules need to be adaptable?

KL Aug-25-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

I say the simplest way to ensure grammatical correctness is to ensure situational correctness. "This is he/him/she/her" is in almost ALL cases situationally incorrect when answering the phone. The correct situational AND therefor grammatical answer should be to answer the question you are asked. Your answer should almost always be "yes". If someone asks if Jane is there and you reply with "this is she/her", you have not answered the question directly and honestly. "Is Jane there?" ... "Yes" or "She is". "May I speak to Jane?" ... "Yes, you may" or even... "You are". If you are a person who absolutely MUST quantify statements, then I suppose "This is Jane" would be most situationally and gramatically correct. I may be a smart alec, but my grammar is correct.

umop_apisdn Sep-01-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Caller: "Hello, is Wendy there?"
Wendy: "This is she."
Caller: "I think you mean, this is her?"

wndylayn Nov-03-2008

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Yes you are right, but steel I belive that, "this is she" is a proper form.
The "this is her" is closer in meaning to "this is hers" or "this is her something" than to "this is she"
The same way as people commonly say "it's me" although gramatically correct should be, "It is I" Although my english teacher told mi that if I answer like that people wold think there is Shekspir on the other side of the door.

But ok, English is not my mother tonque so I shut up.

peter3 Apr-11-2009

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Language is a representation of thought. Poorly formed language indicates poorly formed thought."

Depends what you mean by poorly formed language. If "it is me" is poorly formed, and if poorly formed language indicates poorly formed thought (whatever "poorly formed thought" means), then we have to conclude that many native speakers are guilty of poorly formed thought every time they speak - because they are not adhering to a certain linguistic norm. But this is ridiculous. There are situations where "it is me" is appropriate and there are situations where "it is I" is appropriate. It makes no sense to judge one dialect or register by the standards of another dialect or register.

But of course we *do* judge one dialect or register by the standards of another dialect or register whenever we say that so-and-so uses "bad grammar". This is a social issue, but it has nothing to do with the way language works.

John4 May-28-2009

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

    It’s not that I don’t believe—for I do.  But the reality that there are situations where “It is me” is readily accepted does nothing to establish that it is proper.    There are vast numbers who readily accept “I seen it,” or “I been there,” but this in no wise establishes either as a proper sentence under any circumstances.    It doesn’t surprise me that anyone can cite examples of its use.  But the question is whether it is proper, not whether there are this quantity or that of individuals who either do not know the difference, or who, knowing the difference, choose to use an improper sentence to use in a given circumstance.  I myself, knowing better, use improper grammar deliberately.  (For instance, I usually use “This is me” to keep from derailing the conversation at hand.)

brian.wren.ctr May-28-2009

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Again, you haven't provided any evidence that "it is me" is improper. I've cited a usage book (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage) saying that it is correct in informal English. If you have a usage book saying that "it is me" is improper English in every and all contexts, I'd like to know.

John4 May-28-2009

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Oh, come on now. Isn't it obvious that when someone says “This is her speaking”, that "speaking" is not a noun? Surely no one actually believes that it's a declaration of "TA DA! I am presenting you with the spoken words uttered by her", and by her, I mean me (don't you hate when someone refers to themselves in the third person? how pretentious!). It doesn't make any sense. While hypothetically, I suppose you could, in some twisted, mangled way, parse the sentence that way, it would be a complete non-sequitor. The only way it would make any sense at all is if the conversation went something like this:


::::: ring, ring :::::
"Hello?"
"Yes, hello Rene. I know it's you. I recognize your voice. You just said 'hello'. Is this 'hello', as well as the words you are about to utter, an example of your, meaning Rene's, actual speech, the audible vibrations created by your vocal cords representing English words?"
"This is her speaking"


Why in the world would anyone delclare that the words they are speaking are examples of their own speech?

porsche Jun-24-2009

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

keithwilson23 Jan-11-2010

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Wow, little did I know when I first started reading these comments, that they would still be going FIVE years since the very first...!

Okay, to me?
Grammatically, there can only be one absolutely correct way of phrasing it, and that would be "This is she". Grammar is a set of rules, admittedly some of it might be archaic and sound awkward due to linguistic drift, but the rules are pretty absolute. Whether you agree with the rule or not is a linguistic issue, not a grammatical one.

Language, however, now that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Linguistically, either is 'correct', or rather, nothing is incorrect, as language does indeed evolve.

Or at least, that is how I choose to understand this "debate". Oh, and if I had to choose, I would say "This is he", although more often than not, I preempt the question by answering the phone simply with "Hello, Jonathan."

Jonathan C Oct-20-2011

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

@joy - as some of our sillier rules (for example not using split infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition) have resulted from grammarians trying to align English with Latin, I would say no.

But I think what Brus is trying to do is show an analogy rather than prove a point, and I think it's always interesting to compare languages. At Wikipedia, they say:

"in answering to the question "Who wrote this page?" The natural answer for most English speakers in this context would be "me" (or "It's me"), parallel to moi (or C'est moi) in French."

But they go on to point out a big difference. While 'pronoms disjoints' (or stressed pronouns) are an accepted form in the most formal of French grammar (eg: L'état, cést moi), 'disjunctive pronouns' (the standard term) do not have the same status in traditional English grammar. Many traditional grammarians don't accept this form as correct, and you won't find the term 'disjunctive pronoun' used much in English grammars at all, whether in traditional prescriptive or modern descriptive grammars. Disjunctive is usually used in connection with conjunctions, as is copulative, incidentally. For example all references to 'disjunctive pronoun' in 19th century books at Google Books is for French.

So I think that when they flock to the bookshops, Brus's friends might be rather disappointed.

As an English teacher, I'd rather just go with this type of explanation (from Practical English Usage, by Michael Swan):

'In informal English, we use object forms not only as the objects of verbs and prepositions, but also in most other cases where the words do not come before verbs as their subjects. Object forms are common, for example, in one-word answers and after be:"Who said that?" - "(It was) him"; "Who's that?" -"(It's) me". In a more formal style, we often prefer to use subject form + verb where possible: "Who said that?" - "He did" (but not "he")'.

There are also problems with calling this use the 'disjunctive pronoun'. Firstly, because we don't have a separate form, as in French, secondly because it is not universally accepted, and thirdly because it is used in French in ways we can't use it in English, for example -

Lui seul a travaillé hier.
He alone worked yesterday.

Eux aussi veulent venir.
They want to come too.

I know we have 'Me and Johnny went to the pub last night' - but that's very controversial, and is only used in joint subjects with 'and'.

It's interesting that another use of pronoms disjoints is in comparisons, another controversial area in English:

Il travaille plus que moi. - which could be translated three ways in English:

He works more than I - very formal and old-fashioned but keeps the purists happy:
He works more than I do - neutral and more 'polite'
He works more than me. - informal

Here is one grammar book that does use the term 'disjunctive pronoun', but it points out that 'Unlike in French, where such constructions are considered standard, English pronouns used in this way have caused dispute':

http://books.google.pl/books?id=R6IiDRF5utAC&pg=PT88&dq=%22disjunctive+pronoun%22+english+grammar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tc9kU_XmAu_T7AaUhoHQAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22disjunctive%20pronoun%22%20english%20grammar&f=false

So on balance I prefer to explain these things within the (real) rules of English. We already have all the terminology we need, although with my students I will obviously compare structures with their language when it makes things easier.

I haven't really answered as to why not, but I think that I've shown that similar constructions are often used in very different ways in different languages. The grammar of each language is unique.

Warsaw Will May-03-2014

3 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ben, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what linguists do. Linguists are not in the business of telling people what is "correct" or "incorrect." Rather, linguists describe how the language is used. See the links I gave.

For coordinated pronouns, see the thesis I linked to.

copula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula

John4 Jul-24-2007

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

amazed, could you please explain how using a language is like driving a car?

What about languages with prescriptive manuals? If we keep to this analogy, we must assume that speakers of these languages might be "speeding" whenever they use their language, since there are no written rules for them to follow.

What about speakers of English who lived before the 18th century (which is when prescriptive grammar was invented)? Were Chaucer, Spencer and Shakespeare speeding when they used their language? Would their works have been better if there was a cop telling them what to do?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many other usage commentators, "correct" means "what is used by good writers". In other words, usage is the final arbiter. I don't see how this view is irrelevant to the discussion of correctness. How can the rules have no bearing on how English is used by the writers you want to emulate?

John4 Feb-26-2008

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

That's a good question, Lia. How is a 1st person pronoun (I) made to agree with a verb form (is) in the 3rd person -- as in "That's I", which it would be "I is that" in reverse? Anyone?

donna1 May-10-2008

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

If I point to a picture of the subject and identify the person in question, I say "This is her." I see no difference between that and the telephone answer, this.is.her

bobfoot Feb-18-2009

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

    I am perfectly willing to believe that “many native speakers are guilty of poorly formed thought every time they speak,” given the boneheadedness I witness every day all around me.  But when I said that, I was more addressing the question of why we think of these things—in general—rather than the specific case of “This is me“ v. “This is I.”  I would agree that that would be ridiculous—if that were the only criterion contemplated.  It is valid to at least contemplate grammar, though.

    There is no place where the proper answer to “Who is this?” is “It is me.”  The question requires a nominativce answer; “Me” is not nominative.  This just doesn’t happen to be a dialectual distinction.

    I guess I would say that the topic is broad enough to include both social and language issues. Each case would be distinctive, some more socially oriented, some more associated with grammar, dialect, etc.

brian.wren.ctr May-28-2009

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

I agree that "I" is nominative and "me" is accusative. What I don't agree with is that the nominative must follow the verb "be". What is the evidence for this? Accusative pronouns have been used after "be" since the 1600s. Dictionaries and usage books recognize it as correct, at least in some contexts. My understanding is that the "rule" that "be" must be followed by the nominative is based on an analogy with Latin.

John4 May-29-2009

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

THIS IS SHE is the correct terminology. To those who seek to find the right term, it would be "This is she." How funny one person actually thought "speaking" was a noun when used in the sentence "This is her speaking." LOL! -- it is a verb, dork! Speaking is a verb in this sentence. Another example would be this: This is her ball. You can say that, but not -- This is she ball. In this sentence "ball" is a noun so it is appropriate to say "her" however speaking (which is the topic of this forum - to answer a phone call, what the appropriate answer would be?) is a verb therefore This is she speaking is the correct sentence. don't get confused nor be fooled with poorly formed language or as you call it "slang" words. It is THIS IS SHE!

someone Jul-29-2009

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

elizabeth.a.farmer Jan-11-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-13-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

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."

masrowan Jan-13-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

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...

lushessweet Jul-17-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

"This is she." Is the correct usage. This isn't a matter of what is common, sounds better, or what you happen to use. Right and wrong are still two very different things and there are no grey areas in the rules of proper grammar. If everyone went around robbing banks we still wouldn't grant them the allowance just because it's "common". Languages were set up to make some sort of logical sense and follow a set of rules. When you stop following those rules you are no longer speaking that language, but instead, a warped derivative. You may use whichever method you wish, but know still that the only correct way is the right way and that way is "This is she."

rwashum88 Nov-10-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

'this is she' and 'this is her' are both correct.

Not only does 'this is her' sound better to my ears or is in common usage, I compare it to other sentences. Read all along above for many examples.

'This is she' sounds like something from Shakespeare or some other older-style English. Like, 'He who removes the sword from the stone is..' or 'This is he who removed...'. 'This is she' needs something else, really. But, grammatically, 'this is she' is still correct. As a general note, you use 'she' for the subject, and not 'her' as the sole subject, but 'her' as the object. But normally, like 'Give it to she' is not correct, unless it's 'give it to she who possesses the power of..'. Another way of saying that is 'give it her, who possesses the power of..'.

I never though of speaking as this is her speaking, as in this is her speech or her speaking (the way she speaks), but rather as 'this is her, speaking'. In that case, it would be the same thing as 'this is she, speaking', or 'this is she who speaks of..'.

But 'speaking', was always a short form for 'yes, speaking' for me. Like, may I speak to Db? 'Yes, speaking' (as in, yes, you may, and btw, I'M speaking to you, so don't act as if I'm not even there). In this way, I always think of it like That's me, speaking. Or, yes, I'm speaking. When someone talks to you in the third person, you don't confirm that you're not him by saying this is her or she. What's wrong with you! Say, no! Hey, looky here, that's me, I'm speaking, please. That' just my opinion, anyway.

dbfreak Nov-17-2010

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Well, it's nominative, since it's a predicate nominative following a linking verb, renaming or explaining the subject which, in "This is she," is "This." If you read the postings from January 2010, all of that was gone into exhaustively with polite and understated ire aplenty. It all boils down to "correct by what standard?" Formal English? Colloquial English? For formal/standard English, Elle, you're absolutely correct: it must be "she." What Melissa says above is true. The more properly one speaks, the more likely one is to be branded as a snob. Odd, since I'd never correct or speak down to someone who made an error in the course of conversation, but I've been told I was incorrect when the opposite was true and accused of snobbery when I simply and politely defended what I originally said.

masrowan Feb-15-2011

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

"This is her," is not wrong. Only annoying pedants think it is wrong. Language is not a logical entity; anyone who's ever learned a foreign language will be quick to tell you that. (Russians, for example, say "We and the wife are going to the movies.")

It's not even something English speakers made up; it's a construction we took from French, which is often exalted as a "better" language than English by English speakers. The famous French phrase "C'est moi" (lit. "It's me") is a perfect example. And yes, for "This is him" or "This is he," French speakers do say "C'est lui" instead of "C'est il." (German, meanwhile, avoids the whole fiasco by placing the subject in the front, as in "Ich bin's," lit. "I'm it.")

In short: more annoying pedantry from the anti-change lobby who don't understand how language works.

Evan1 Oct-26-2011

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

#caller - "Good morning, is this Jane Smith?" / "Can I please speak with Ms Smith?"

# Jane Smith - "Speaking."

Problem solved, thank you very much.
I can't believe this argument has gone on for so long.

Yes there's a difference between what people speak now and sounds acceptable, and what the rules say sounded acceptable once. One of the joys of English is that it is fluid and not so rigid and stuck behind grammar rules... see split infinitives and prepositions on the end of sentences, and various others (probably all with posts as long as this one).

Say what you want on the phone, either you'll sound normal, or pretentious, or dumb depending on what side of this argument the other person believes in... either way, it shouldn't cause a problem.

Thredder Sep-04-2012

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Nana - OK, I'd like to respond to this by commenting on Chris Haller's comment form way back on this thread. Chris sees two schools of thought on grammar - those who put the rules first, and those who put usage first, and says he's proud to be one of the first group.

I'm curious to know where Chris and you think grammar rules originally came from, if not from usage. The earliest English grammar books appeared in the late sixteenth century century and were purely observational - they looked at how English was used and tried to show it as a system. One of the most accessible is that of Ben Jonson - "The English Grammar" of 1640. It was Jonson who said "Custom is the most certain mistress of language".

Then along came the prescriptivists, who felt the need to tidy the language up a bit, either by aligning it more with Latin, making hard-and-fast rules from what had merely been majority use, or just making up rules according to their own whims.

At this point let's make it absolutely clear that the vast majority of English grammar is totally uncontroversial. I think we can all agree that a sentence like "If I will see him, I tell him" is ungrammatical. There would be nothing illogical in using a future form in both clauses, as for example happens in Polish. But our system of conditionals has developed through usage.Not surprisingly, as they are the only area where we still have grammatical case, pronouns represent the area where there is probably the greatest disagreement.

Generally recognised as the first prescriptivist is Robert Lowth. In his "A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes", 1762, he took Shakespeare to task for writing "Who servest thou under" and "Who do you speak to". And prescriptivist grammarians have insisted on "whom" ever since. Yet as early as 1772, other grammarians, like Joseph Priestley (whose "The Rudiments of English Grammar" had originally appeared a year before Lowth's book) commented "Dr Lowth says that grammar requires us to say 'Whom do you think me to be'. But in conversation we always hear 'Who do you think me to be' ".

Priestley also wrote:

"All our grammarians say, that the nominative cases of pronouns ought to follow the verb substantive as well as precede it; yet many familiar forms of speech, and the example of some of our best writers, would lead us to make a contrary rule -, or, at least, would leave us at liberty to adopt which we liked best. ... Who is there? It is me. ... It is not me you are in love with. Addison. (It cannot be me. Swift. To that which once was there. Prior. There is but one man that she -can have, and that is me. Clarissa."

The problem comes when 'the rules' are completely out of kilter with standard educated practice. Suggesting that the norm is "Hi Mum, it is I", when only a tiny minority of educated speakers would say such a thing, isn't doing anyone any favours either - it is totally artificial. Which is why EFL learners are taught "it's me" - in other words, natural English. Back to the common sense of Priestly:

"But our grammarians appear to me to have acted precipitately in this business,
and to have taken a wrong method of fixing our language. This will never be effected by the arbitrary rules of any man, or body of men whatever; because these suppose the language actually fixed already, contrary to the real state of it: whereas a language can never be properly fixed, till all the varieties with which it is used, have been held forth to public view, and the general preference of certain forms have been declared, by the general practice afterwards.

Whenever I have mentioned any variety in the grammatical forms that are used to express the same thing, I have seldom scrupled to say which of them I prefer; but this is to be understood as nothing more than a conjecture, which time must confirm or refute."

And time has indeed confirmed that, even though the 'rule' may say that a copular verb is followed by a predicate nominative (or subject complement as we call it in EFL), most educated English speakers have a great reluctance to use nominative (subject) forms when they are not followed by a verb. It is simply not natural English. And natural English is far more important in my book than any arbitrary rules.

Warsaw Will Feb-09-2014

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

Excuse me Jasper but this thread started with the sentence "A common example is the phrase “This is she.” used to answer a telephone."

I am not discussing the pros and cons of "This is she" and "This is her" just saying that (a) no-one says either in British English (ever) and definitely not "this is she" which would sound so weird that if you'd only ever heard one American say it you would have thought they were being sarcastic
(b) in my experience of speaking to US customers over the past 13 years I have never heard a man say either "This is he" or "This is him".

That is all. I am just saying, for the benefit of foreign learners of English, that this is an American female usage (we Brits answer these questions on the phone in a totally different way, as in my limited but not inconsiderable experience do American males).

So my knowledge of formal grammar is irrelevant. I am talking about my knowledge of usage. OK?

Peter Reynolds Feb-22-2014

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Jasper - Well, I for one found Peter Reynold's 'anecdote', which was just a simple observation, quite interesting, especially as it was more or less repeating something I'd said - that this expression wasn't used by Brits when answering the phone.

Observations like this can add something, even if they are not strictly about the grammar point the questioner was asking about; it was something that was puzzling me, too - who would say 'this is she' when answering the phone. And in a any case, it's all English, after all - grist to the mill for PITE readers.

Warsaw Will Feb-23-2014

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

This is she, if you want to say it correctly.
This is her, if you want to say it incorrectly.

Miss J Apr-30-2014

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

As a full stack developer who speaks/writes several coding languages with direct consequences for syntactical errors, I will say that I appreciate the more liberal view of how to apply rules to human language. Also, somehow, I got here after being curious about hypercorrective phonetic overcompensation vs overregularization. (What a mouth full.)

If we approach this philosophically, the rules of language are helpful for standardizing communication in order to create clarity and reduce mistakes. When they are overly formal or held too tightly, they seem to do the opposite. While I will certainly concede that, "this is she," is correct based on the consensus of today's experts I would simply like to point back to the valid arguments of context describing English as a largely Germanic language greatly impacted by the French and Victorian English and thus take a slightly more fatalistic perspective. If the exact evil powers of colonial imperialism which conquered the west didn't envelop and permeate so much of modern academia, the technically right mode could very easily be, "this is her." The language is a mishmash, mutt of a thing anyway.

Please ask yourself why the rules "need" to be upheld. Are they moving us towards a beautifully absolute linguistic truth? I think not. They have been forged and derived, refined and convoluted by a lot of people with a lot of opinions and experiences over a lot of time. When viewed with actual humility and a little bit of perspective, these debates are interesting, but their importance is a bit over-inflated. It really is lovely how language evolves with us as a dynamic aspect of animal interaction.

Besides considering all the chance that went into the correct rules, might you also ask yourself how so much pedantry drives socioeconomic polarization and then reassess how the rules are impacting clear, error free communication as well as the oppression of entire communities of human beings. If the dominant results are derision and confusion instead of clarity, maybe further revision is in order. Are your lingual loyalties based in the fear of societal decline or simple change. Are you afraid of not being able to distinguish yourself socially or economically by the content of your character and quality of your thoughts? Essentially you're ferociously defending a system that was created by other imperfect humans. Have some flexibility and please refrain from the slippery slope arguments about complete deconstruction. That is the most absurd bit I I read in this long list of comments. I dislike the word "conversate" as much as the next girl, but the fundamentals of language suggest that if enough people use a word or phrase, it will become part of vernacular and then proper diction. It will creep up on some scholar and start popping into peer reviewed articles and everyone will stop caring and it will be normalized...

By the way, for bruschetta, how many of you say brew-shedda and how many of you say brew-skate-ah? The second one is correct...at least according to formal Italian. I can't tell you how many intelligent people I meet who just don't know what they don't know.

In the end, if you're too attached to your high horse, do some reading about the theory of multiple intelligences and expand your understanding of the human experience in order to breed empathy and better guide your heart in these situations. Being ruled by your ego, insecurity, fear, and even sense of tradition makes you sound far more infantile than any simple colloquial telephonic reception.

Be well,
Eliza

LEW Jul-26-2017

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

John-

Well, yah, of course we get ignored or insulted! In our corner of the world, language is the yardstick that we use to measure each other's intelligence. When you talk ABOUT language, you risk "threatening" people. Language plays such a fundamental role in structuring the Universe itself (down to the smallest sub-atomic particle) that pointing out its plasticity is, frankly, quite scary. Most people don't realize, for example, that many academic papers have been written in Krio. Not ON Krio. IN Krio. And as for intelligence, you mentioned Pirahã at some point, if I recall correctly. Documentation of this language by Indo-European-speaking anthropologists has come to redefine our understanding of the meaning of "intelligence."

AO Apr-18-2008

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Why is this still a topic of discussion? I thought John and AO solved this problem already?! The horse is dead!

Andre Aug-20-2008

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

When someone asks "May I speak with Sam?", you may reply:

"Yes, this is Sam."

Alternatively, if we are to replace Sarah with a pronoun, then you may say:

"Yes, this is him."

Similarly, when the caller is referring to a third person (say, in a conference) by the question "Is that Sam?", then a response would likely be:

"Yes, it's him."

In parallel, the feminine follows the same pattern:

May I speak with Sarah?
Yes, this is her.

"Her" sounds more appropriate than "she" given these settings.

anonymous4 Sep-02-2008

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Anonymous,
Thank you. I am enlightened. Please further inform me. Where was my grammar incorrect when responding literally to a question? As for social obligations. I don't recall mentioning them. Unless you are assuming the social obligation of telling someone exactly to whom it is that they are speaking. A speech pattern I believe I was rather obviously against. But, again, thanks.

umop_apisdn Sep-02-2008

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Thank you, all!! I prefer the sound of, "this is she", but I don't cringe when I hear, "this is her", anymore. I will start saying, "speaking", however.

Ines1 Sep-03-2008

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I'm not a native speaker of English,but I am an English teacher and I'm currently applying for a job in British schools. If a head teacher ring me to ask me for an interview, then what do I say when they ask for me? You all disagree on what is correct, so maybe you can just tell me what is the normal thing to say? what will this head teacher expect me to say in a formal job interview setting? (Without me sounding too posh, because I'm not). This is her or this is she?

Siv Mar-24-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Of course there are situations where the proper answer to "who is this?" is "it is me." Both "it is I" and "it is me" are in reputable use. "It is me" is found in writing from the 1600s. "It is I" tends be used in more formal situations, and "it is me" in more informal writing and speechlike prose. (MWDEU pages 566-568) It seems to be a difference of register, not dialect. Yes, "me" is not nominative, but accusative pronouns can follow "be".

John4 May-28-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I have provided evidence, evidence with which you even agree.   “I” is the nominative, “me” is not.   “It is I” is the proper response to situations requiring a nominative response, or when making a nominative declaration (eg, “Don’t be afraid: it is I”).   “It is me” is not nominative.
    Improper pronoun usage can be found all over the place (“Me and him went to the store,” “Us neighbors had a barbeque,” etc.), and people get the idea.   If those cases are used enough, dictionaries will start to cite them as common usage, so that people reading the dictionary will have explained to them what it is that they are looking up.   But that will not change the accurate statement that those pornouns are incorrect, just as using “me” as a noninative pronoun is.   My dictionary handles this case in the following fashion. “also used as a predicate complement with a linking verb, although the usage is objected to by some.”
    This does not, of course, contradict the fact that “me” is frequently used as if it were nominative.

brian.wren.ctr May-29-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Speaking" can very well be a noun. "Your speaking is very clear and enunciated" works as a sentence. Similarly then one could say, "This is her speaking."

peter3 Jun-23-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I believe that the correct expression, formal or familiar, is: "The is her" speaking or not. "Her" is the object of the sentence. No one should every say, "This is she here" I agree that the best way is: "Yes, here" or "Yes, speaking".

mcarman150 Jul-10-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

I go with "it is I"

and therefore

"This is I"

wbkaiser Dec-15-2009

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

Diana1 Jan-09-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

lornad Jan-11-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

John4 Jan-13-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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"?

masrowan Jan-13-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-14-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

masrowan Jan-14-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-14-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-14-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

masrowan Jan-14-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

masrowan Jan-15-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-18-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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

masrowan Jan-18-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-19-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

masrowan Jan-20-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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.

douglas.bryant Jan-21-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

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!)'

Beverly1 Jun-27-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Has it been mentioned that spoken English is almost always different than written English?

There are terms and phrases that are used in colloquial speech, yet are never used in writing. Also, as others have stated, there are written phrases that are in common usage that are grammatically incorrect, yet are replaced by their incorrect, less obfuscated-sounding counterparts.

There are some things that I believe that should remain consistent in our language, yet, as language is an evolution, people need to recognize that things do change, and will continue to change, for as long as humans exist. Thus, this should not really be a point of contention.

That said, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using slang and/or colloquial forms in place something that could possibly alienate you by making you appear as if you stepped out of the 1600s. I will not knock anyone who chooses to say "I am smarter than her" in place of "I am smarter than she." In fact, I'm going to encourage it, as long as you are conscientious of the correct form.

Lastly, if it makes things simpler for both the writer and the reader to understand, then one may opt to say, "She is smarter than I am," rather than saying, "She is smarter than I." I'm not advocating the dumbing down of the language, but if you have to find a medium between sounding silly and being grammatically correct, that is it.

thekidz03 Nov-07-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Languages were not "set up". Languages have evolved with zero intervention for a very long time. Grammar was "set up", but English was never "set up".

There is no such thing as right or wrong in language. Language is a fluid tool that has changed millions of times over the full length of human existence. You can be grammatically incorrect, because that is a constructed set of rules, but you can never be linguistically incorrect.

Practically speaking, very few languages have ever codified grammatical rules the way that modern languages have. It is pride that drives people to take their language so seriously they believe every native speaker must write and speak the way it is stated in some rulebook. There wouldn't be the richness and variety of languages if Sumerian did what English has done.

Perhaps we should just gather up all the Scots and Cockneys and teach them how to speak *real* English, you know, since we're the ones who actually use it correctly.

Paul3 Nov-16-2010

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

She is the one to whom the caller is speaking is she not? Who is speaking to the caller? She is not her is! She is the subjective, right? So if you are talking about your self with the verb to be you must use she.

sadgegoddess Feb-15-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Wow, I wonder if the original poster ever thought their question would trigger a five year debate of the topic.

joy Jun-20-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

this subject annoys me. I was taught in 2nd grade that "this is she" is correct and since second grade it is what I have used. People around me use "this is she" I have heard people say "this is her" but mostly at gas stations. Just because some people think they can alter a language with poor usage doesn't mean it SHOULD be altered. I am not perfect but if I was speaking incorrectly and sounded like an idiot I would hope someone would tell me. I would also remind you that other countries speak English, and would be offended at your arrogance to suggest that simply out of American laziness we should change a grammatical rule.

stella Jul-19-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Wow, this is quite a thread! This discussion started with the proper way to answer a phone when saying "This is she/her." Is there something special about the word "this"? For example, is there anyone who would claim that the following is correct?

"Who is Jane?"
"That is she."

Can we all agree that that question is more properly answered "That is her"? Why, then, does it become an issue when you are referring to yourself with "this"? The two cases seem identical to me.

If these cases are different, why are they? If they are the same, then would anyone argue that the rules of copulative verbs and nominative cases and such would indicate that, when pointing out another person, one should say "That is she"?

scrumpy7 Aug-23-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

When answering it would be simple and correct to say:

"May I speak to Sarah Sue?"
"I am Sarah Sue."
One, therefore, would not have to worry about the correct of she or her.

Bess Aug-27-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I was taught that the "is" between the words is an equals sign, meaning both words have to be in the same tense. If "this" is present tense, then "she" would be present tense. Also the two words will interchange. This is she and She is this. I say, This is she, and wouldn' be caught dead turning it around to say Her is this.

mac Nov-07-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"This" is the subject. "She" is what we use as the subject. "Her" is what we would use as a direct object. Since this is placed where the direct object would be, the proper address would be "This is her," since "her" is the direct object and not the subject.

AHProctor Jul-12-2012

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

this was super fun to read as a clueless individual - and i thought it was going to be a simple google search. i LOVE that this started in 2006, here i am in 2012 and it looks like it will hopefully never end. however, this is where i stopped reading, appropriately made me chuckle:

"Reality Dr. (unregistered) September 10, 2007, 6:04pm
Reality Check #1:
This discussion has been going on for a YEAR! Better usage of time people? Simple solution: use something you know to be correct, do not risk sounding like an idiot (because either usage of she/her can have that result).

Reality Check #2:
Language is constantly evolving, from having a lot of vitality to near death (defend Latin all you want, 99% of the world does not really care). Therefore, this conversation will become irrelevant when the Chinese people take over the world and everybody will have to speak Cantonese or Mandarin.

Reality Check #3:
I already spent too much time on this inconsequential topic (compared to the big picture), so this will be my first and last post!

Much Love and Peach for All."

lovely Aug-13-2012

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

My minor was in English 40 years ago and I've noticed since then that the language has changed somewhat since Microsoft's Clippy came into being. But it seems to me you would use she only in that phone situation. If someone asked the question, "who is the best player on the side?" you should answer, "Number 14.". Pronouns cause too many problems with ambiguity. Besides, saying, "it is her" would require pointing at someone and my Mom told me you were not supposed to point.

Jock Ellis Sep-03-2012

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I agree with the last comment (Roar) that the most logical way to answer is to say 'That's me'. While either 'she' or 'her', or both, may be correct grammatically, its strange to refer to yourself that way. I always thought 'me' is how you refer to yourself and 'she' or 'her' are the way other people refer to you. If someone asks 'who's that' you say 'its me'. Whether you are answering that you are the one speaking or whether you are equating yourself with who the caller is asking for, is a moot point. Because as the one answering you can interpret the question as you like.

Gee Jan-29-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

SOLUTION:
Can I speak to Sarah?
Yes.
(Wait for caller to start speaking to Sarah.)

Simple May-13-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

This reply to the telephone always intrigues me, as the obvious course of the chat should be, but never is:

#caller - "Good morning, is this Jane Smith?"

# Jane Smith - "No way! I am. You're someone else."

Brus May-14-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Taking some examples from many years ago of this stuff, may I suggest a lesson from French, where the word for "I" which is "Je" when it is the subject, and "me" when it is the object, is "moi" when it is used after prepositions (with me = avec moi", after me = apres moi - can't do accents on keyboard) and disjunctively with the complement of 'be', as we say "It's me" = "C'est moi". The corresponding English word for "moi" is "me", and that is what all the confusion has been about, as it is the same as the accusative word for "me" used for the object of the verb (He sees me = Il me voit). So "him" "her", "them" and "me" and "us" can be i) obect or ii) disjunctive. In case of doubt, use one of these, and claim it is disjunctive; you'll probably get away with it.

So "Me and my friend are going out." is ungrammatical, although it establishes the speaker's demotic credentials, because 'me' is the subject, so should be 'I' so correctly "My friend and I ..." - subject of "are going ...".

"Who wants to go? Not me!" Fair enough - just say it's disjunctive, for emphasis, "pas moi!"

"She is taller than me." Fair enough. Disjunctive, "moi" in French. Used in comparative phrases as the complement with 'than'. Also "taller than I" is correct if explained with reference to ellipsis: "taller than I (am)." But that is a bit far-fetched.

Brus May-14-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Brus - demotic credentials? Is that something like street cred?

Seriously though, I'm glad you accept "Who wants to go? Not me!" and "She is taller than me."

I like your point about a disjunctive pronoun, but I'm not sure you can really say "me" is the equivalent of "moi", as we don't have a disjunctive pronoun in English. But "It's me" certainly sounds more natural in English.

Back to demotic credentials. Isn't it more to do with register than social status. To my friends at work, I might well say "Me and Dave are going to the pub", but to someone I want to impress or be more formal with, I'd say "David and I are going to the pub". But you might have a bit of a point in that in Britain, at least, language is "democratising". The use of the word "Mate" as a greeting, for example, which used to be exclusively working class, is pretty classless nowadays. What I do find fascinating is that it's almost always "Me and Dave" or "David and I", but hardly ever "Dave and me" or "I and David".

As I've probably said before, pronouns are the last area of English to have inflections, so it's hardly surprising if their use is still in a bit of a flux. We only have to look at "who/whom".

Warsaw Will May-14-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"This is she." - Technically correct. Formal, English standard usage

"This is her." - Technically correct. Informal, colloquial usage.

"Speaking." - Most correct. Best, unambiguous usage.

A. Linguist Jun-20-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I find it fascinating that an incomplete subjective conjuncture of the conjoined pronouns lacks a predicative subjugated adverb when used in response to a phone caller asking a commoner question "may I speak to Joon Park" and Joon replies "I is she". We all know this girl must have been drunking.

However, if Joon were to answer "who's axing", then one would assume that the only Latin this receptionist learned was not "suma cum laude or "carpe idiom" but "idioticus giganticus".

C'mon now peeps, we all know the correct way to answer the phone don't we?

Snobs trying to hard to appear edjumicated - this is she
Riff raff trying to buck formalities - this is her

The common punter -"Speaking"
let's keep it reals!

tandava Jul-02-2013

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

If you will be taking a standardized test, such as TEAS, HESI, or NLN, you better know how to use the rules. Not knowing them, no matter how we speak in everyday life, could mean you can't pursue the career training you choose. Forget about them the day after you pass the test, but know them during that 30 minute period. In real life, simply say, "This is (your name)." It's correct by anyone's standards.

TEAS grammar tutor Feb-08-2014

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@TEAS grammar tutor - so I'm all the happier that I teach EFL and that exams like IELTS, FCE, CAE, CPE and TOEIC reflect normal spoken English, and certainly wouldn't penalise you for saying, for example, "it's me". A context formal enough to warrant 'It is I' would be very unlikely to come up in any of these exams. Neither would students be penalised for using 'who' in object position, unless it followed a preposition. I suppose TEAS is more directed at academic English, but why nurses need to use 'I' after a linking or copular verb beats me.

As for 'This is she / her / (your name) ' - I think that we Brits usually just say 'speaking' or 'so-and-so speaking' when answering the phone. Apart from a certain Hyacinth Bucket, of course, who answers the phone, "The Bouquet residence, the lady of the house speaking."

The only time we're likely to say 'This is ....' would be when we're calling somebody else, when obviously we would say neither 'she' nor 'her', but our name.

Warsaw Will Feb-08-2014

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

P.S. - EFL teaching also recognises that English has different registers. What is appropriate in 'normal spoken English' is not always appropriate in very formal English.

Unfortunately some people think that formal language is the only correct language, and that basing ordinary grammar on 'normal spoken usage' is somehow dumbing down. Isn't that rather a case of the tail (the 'rules') wagging the dog (the language?. Do you really think that saying 'It is I' makes someone more intelligent (rather than simply sounding like a bit of a prat)?

Warsaw Will Feb-09-2014

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Peter Reynolds,

Perhaps, it is endemic to females, but your knowledge of formal grammar is not irrelevant because you made a judgment: "I thought the customer was being ironic because she was being asked if she was, say, Janet". You thought she was being ironic because you lacked the knowledge that this is what a prescriptivist would consider the 'most correct form' to use. However, I can't speak for the female caller, so she might not be aware of grammar at all, and if that is the case, then you are somewhat right. Also 'this is she', unless the speech was inflected, is not a question; it's a simple statement.

Read more carefully: " ‘She’ is the nominative form of the word, so it cannot be used to describe somebody who is the object of a sentence (in this example, ‘this’ would be the subject)." The questioner asked whether 'This is she" is more grammatically correct than 'this is her' because they believed 'is' to be taking an object when in fact it takes subjective complement.

I apologize for offending you. I probably shouldn't have attacked you like that, but this sight has been getting extra traffic, and someone of the people who have commented recently have been less than desirable.

Jasper Feb-23-2014

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Count me as one of the people who found Peter's post to be adding positive value to the discussion. Never before had I viewed the response "This is s/he" to be a feminine trait. Peter's post made me stop and think about it, and I did enjoy a little moment of revelation where I thought maybe his observation might be valid.

For what it's worth, I am female and have always, always, answered the telephone inquiry in question with "This is she." I have never considered it snobby, I don't do it in an effort to impress. I can only assure everyone that I am not from high breeding, nor do I aspire to be. I answer the phone that way because that's how my mother did it when I was a child. My grandmother did it, my aunts did it, and all of my friends did as well. I had never heard it in any other way I cared to emulate. Upon discovery of this thread years ago, I was positively flummoxed to learn that it is such a hotly debated issue.

Regardless of whether or not popular current usage ever manages to prove me "wrong" to use "This is she"; I think I would remain partial to its use because it is a definitive, unarguable statement that sets a tone of confidence for the conversation to follow. Other responses can too easily fall into a pit of being hesitant or unsure, setting a faltering tone for the coming conversation.

*"Is this Jane Smith?"
"Ah... yeah. That... would be me, I guess... What do you want?"*

Are you sure you know who you are?

In contrast, no one may argue with the confidence of
*"This is SHE!"*
Speak and be heard.

I think the discomfort many people have with correct usage in this case stems from the phenomenon that there is a mini-moment at the beginning of the conversation where the receiver is forced to think of himself in the third person. He may, after all, not be the person in question at all, which leads to the aforementioned hesitation in response. Many people's daily lives don't present much opportunity to view themselves from a detached perspective. Hence, I would like to proffer the hypothesis that the unfamiliarity of the concept breeds contempt of the use.

joy Feb-23-2014

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I have to say that a lot of the arguments for "this is she" as well as "this is her" fall quite short of the mark.


First, it is true that English is not an academic language. This means that it has no academy to prescribe rules. Instead, we have two conventions of English: British and American. There is standard English, however the argument that "this is she" is to be preferred because it is standard shows that the person arguing such doesn't understand what standard means. Standard in this context only means conforming to English that is spoken in either convention by educated natives. For example, "he ain't happpy" isn't standard English but colloquial American English; which descriptively, is still a linguistic oversimplification. Rather what is standard according to said convetion is "He isn't happy" or more formal "He is not happy."

That's it. English has no academy and therefore descriptivism indeed takes home the prize.
That said, why are some people so angry about saying "this is she" versus "this is her?" Easy. Culture. They've always learned that "this is she" is how we say such, therefore they want to argue that it must be the case. However, as can be seen in several of the posts, such people don't know how to argue logically and therefore appeal to underhand suggestions that attack outside cultures. "English originiated in Britian... therefore." "Americans don't speak English as well as the British... therefore."

The crux of the issue is merely in ellipitical clauses. When one requests to speak to someone by phone, yet does not know who has answered, the person who responds will usually answer with an elliptical clause, which omis and simultaneously implies any number of words.

For example, "Hi, is Scott there?" Response: "speaking." Here, "speaking" could be a gerund or present participle, the gerund's not at all needing to suggest "speech" in a sentence like "Speaking developed in humans over 70 thousand years ago" but can simply be part of a verb pattern (like, "I hate speaking to my little sister" where the gerund can of course be interpreted as a grammatical argument that reveals information about the subject. Non-finite verbs, however, are not meant to reveal information about the subject; whereas in the example sentence, even if the non-finite verb were uninflected: "I hate [to talk] to my sister," most educated native speakers in both conventions would agree that the person must therefore talk to their sister at least from time to time. Note, pay attention to the modal verb "must," which does not argue deductively, but inductively. ;)

That is, when the person says "speaking," what they are saying is "this is the person who you are looking for and who is speaking now." It's all boiled down to "speaking," because Scott knows that the listener's capacity to assume as an intelligent being rather than a computer is such that he will assume that such is what is meant. As well, it's simply more timely and natural to speak in such a way, among other things.

If Scott had said "this is him," then the object pronoun could be imbedded in a bound relative clause where "him" is the object argument placed in the subordinate clause, "this is him (the person) whom you seek (where "whom you seek" is implied. :) )

And, now more easily: "Is Sue there?" (asked in the third person singular, and for the sake of coherence, so used in), "yes, this is she." In this example response, "This" is the demonstrative determiner that replaces the noun (and following noun phrase) "the person" or "the person you are looking for." One more time: "Is Sue there?" Response: "The person you are looking for is she." (I know, under the American convention, the sentence "this is she," and the latest development "the person you are looking for is she" would seem immediately defective. Just bear with me. If you're used to the British convention of English, know that for some people, saying such sentences would be like petting a dog backwards). Continuging, in this final case of explored responses, we are arguing for the usage of "she" in the sentence "this is she" and therefore it behooves us to say that the demonstrative determiner "this" is the subject, and hence the copula "is" predicates a subject complement: "she" by necessity. In an elliptical clause, "who is speaking" could be interpreted as well, in "this is she... who is speaking."

For some people, the problem still remains in the last part of this explanation: "she" [isn't an object] but a subject, so why is it in the place of an object. The simple answer is that it's not an object. The long answer is that in English more broadly, syntax generally conforms to the pattern: Subject, verb, object. Hence, it might seem like "this" is the subject, "is," the verb, and therefore "her" or "me,"necessarily the object. Not so. The confusion is in the details of copulas.

Let me clarify.

A copula (or more technically, a copular verb) is a special kind of verb, of which there are not very many at all. In a lot of languages, there is only one copular verb: "To be." In English, there are a few, but the most frequently used copular verb is the same: "to be." Copula comes from Latin and only means "link" or "tie." As such, we also call such verbs "linking verbs."

It gets more complicated, but not by much. Bear with me.

A "true" linking verb is always and only a linking verb. What does a true copula or linking verb do? It connects a subject with a complement. It cannot be an action. To walk is only an action verb, therefore to walk cannot be a linking verb. To [be] (happy) isn't an action. It cannot be. Again, to be is only a linking verb.

There are some other linking verbs, but the point is twofold:
1. In English, there are only just a few "true" linking verbs, and therefore it is easy to confuse their subject complements for grammatical objects. Like, "this is she" vs "this is her."

2. Because a true linking verb is followed by a complement, and because we decided that "this"is the subject in the response "this is she," the complement is by deductive inference therefore a subject complement. Subject complements that are pronouns [replace, mirror or describe their subjects] and therefore [are so inflected].

Incidentally, "subject complement" is the door to the academic world on this very question: "This is she," or "this is her." As others have attempted and as John rightly deflected, while subject complements are in the nominative case in Latin, nominative meaning that the noun or pronoun is inflected as a subject of its verb, English is not Latin. English is English and is made up of three contending morphological histories. Germanic, Latin and Greek, along with several other influences. Because there is no academy of English, there is no universally [elected] authority of the language. That's why John used "descriptivism" so much in his responses. "The rules are only as good as what is considered right by most native, educated speakers." I added to that, however, that the problem is culture, and indeed it is. There is no doubt that many teachers use such Latin influences traditionally in teaching children how to speak English, thinking that because the grammar they teach makes sense and has been done before, it must be said way. In fact, European linguistics tends to study traditional subjects; whereas in the US, linguistics focuses on phonetics and phonology a great deal more. National educations also differ considerably between Great Britain and the US. In Great Britain, many people study Latin. Not in the US.

One of the dangers of national or traditional education systems is that when something complicated or just plain wrong is taught, it is taught to everyone. In France, for example, the national education has taught for decades that in English, the imperfect (aspect) is translated with "en train de," which is only an expression of time that means "in the process of" or "in the middle of." Result? Everytime we say something in English like "I was watching t.v. yesterday night," a lot of common French people might try to translate the -ing as "J'ai été en train de regarder la télé hier soir," which of course means something different, just as if we had said, "I was in the middle of watching t.v. last night."

Now, just imagine how different regions of the country must interact with each other on their forums about such questions :)

polisny Sep-13-2015

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Well, it seems to me you’ve somewhat overcomplicated a relatively simple issue, but you raise some interesting points. I'll limit myself, however, to briefly looking at just four:

You call “He ain’t happy” colloquial American English, to which a Londoner might reply “No, it ain’t”, well, not exclusively, at least. It seems to have developed from “an’t”, of which there are three examples in Congreve’s Love for Love (1695), my favourite being “Sea-calf! I an't calf enough to lick your chalk'd face, you cheese-curd, you.”. There are several examples of the use of “ain’t” in Dickens, and for a while it was also part of British upper class cant. In modern London dialect “ain’t” is often used in double negatives –“I ain’t never seen him”, “It ain’t none of your business”. In popular culture there was the 1970s British TV series “It ain’t half hot, Mum”, and more up to date, we have “I ain’t bovvered” (Lauren, Catherine Tait Show). While I totally agree with you about the “my variety of English is better than yours” way of thinking, which of course is linguistic nonsense, I would hate to see British English denied its claim to this particular and important corner of the language.

It’s true that English has no academy, a fact I rejoice in, but you seem to be suggesting that for that reason descriptivism “takes home the prize” . But I’m afraid I don’t see any necessary connection between the two. Prescriptivism and descriptivism are two different ways of looking at language, and the lack of an academy didn’t stop prescriptivism ruling the roost in English grammar on both sides of the Atlantic for some two hundred years. Nor does the existence of an academy rule out a descriptive approach: the three volume Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, is published under the auspices of none other than the Real Academia Española (R.A.E), often seen as the guardians of prescriptivism in Spain.

Ellipsis, gerunds and present participles – some modern grammarians are dropping the distinction between gerunds and present participles, and in EFL teaching we often refer to both as –ing forms, but seeing you mentioned them, there is no way I can see “Speaking” in your “Hi Scott” example being an ellipsis of a gerund phrase (at least not in the way gerund is understood in English grammar, i.e. as having a nominal function). Nor do I think tit ios necessary to think about any number of possible variations – “Speaking” here is simply an ellipsis of the natural English expression “This is Scott speaking”. No further explanation (such as “the person who(m) ... etc ”) is necessary, and I would suggest, leads you into very unnatural constructions that no native speaker would ever utter. As I understand it, elipsis is the omission of words from natural expressions, such as "It's time you went to bed" "I don't want to (go to bed)", not from artificial constructs.

Lastly, I would be careful with expressions like “a lot of common French people”. Native speakers might not read this in quite the way you intended!

Warsaw Will Sep-16-2015

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

The Hungarian word "ing" translates as "shirt" in English. However, calling the "-ing" form of the verb the "shirt" form is not well understood; nor does it prove the existence of an Ugric substrate in English.

jayles the unwoven Sep-17-2015

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

This is a complete hypercorrection. English grammar is NOT comparable to Latin grammar, although it is somewhat comparable to French (where, surprise surprise, the rule is "C'est moi" -- "It's me.")

To put it more technically, the subject complement doesn't fall into the "nominative case", which in English exists only vestigially in singular subjects, but rather the "disjunctive". The disjunctive is used for emphasis or when, for whatever reason, the subject is not the explicit actor of the verb (which in this case is "This is...").

Spoken English similarly mirrors standard French with the use of disjunctive pronouns in compound subjects, such as the commonly heard "Me and him are going to the shops". In this case, disjunctive pronouns are again preferred because the explicit verb-subject agreement has been broken (you cannot say "he are going" -- what you are actually saying is "Me and him, (we) are going...").

Nigel Appleby Apr-06-2016

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Is "there her is! correct?

mary olson Jun-16-2016

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

If you were going to point out your friend Sarah to someone, you would say "That's her". So it should be "This is her"

Lauren Borkowski Sep-09-2016

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

In China, this is a very common phenomenon, people often omit some words, or using some words to imply some words。

lcx Oct-02-2016

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I looked this up to find out what is correct.
Well, I see that it is contested, but I truly believe it is "This is she" not "This is her." "Her" is like an adjective, describing something.
It grates upon the native ear, as it is said.

Pita M Dec-19-2016

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

You guys are all missing a very important aspect of this, and that's in the question being asked.

I would say "This is her", and so do most people that think it just sounds right, because it sounds right for good reason.

The point is, when someone asks something like
"May I please speak to Jane?"
when you reply "This is her", the 'her' is talking about Jane from the question, and you could just replace Jane with her and it still makes sense "May I please speak to her".
You wouldn't say "May I please speak to she."

Dude May-25-2017

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

As a full stack developer who speaks/writes several coding languages with direct consequences for syntactical errors, I will say that I appreciate the more liberal view of how to apply rules to human language. Also, somehow, I got here after being curious about hypercorrective phonetic overcompensation vs overregularization. (What a mouth full.)

If we approach this philosophically, the rules of language are helpful for standardizing communication in order to create clarity and reduce mistakes. When they are overly formal or held too tightly, they seem to do the opposite. While I will certainly concede that, "this is she," is correct based on the consensus of today's experts I would simply like to point back to the valid arguments of context describing English as a largely Germanic language greatly impacted by the French and Victorian English and thus take a slightly more fatalistic perspective. If the exact evil powers of colonial imperialism which conquered the west didn't envelop and permeate so much of modern academia, the technically right mode could very easily be, "this is her." The language is a mishmash, mutt of a thing anyway.

Please ask yourself why the rules "need" to be upheld. Are they moving us towards a beautifully absolute linguistic truth? I think not. They have been forged and derived, refined and convoluted by a lot of people with a lot of opinions and experiences over a lot of time. When viewed with actual humility and a little bit of perspective, these debates are interesting, but their importance is a bit over-inflated. It really is lovely how language evolves with us as a dynamic aspect of animal interaction.

Besides considering all the chance that went into the correct rules, might you also ask yourself how so much pedantry drives socioeconomic polarization and then reassess how the rules are impacting clear, error free communication as well as the oppression of entire communities of human beings. If the dominant results are derision and confusion instead of clarity, maybe further revision is in order. Are your lingual loyalties based in the fear of societal decline or simple change. Are you afraid of not being able to distinguish yourself socially or economically by the content of your character and quality of your thoughts? Essentially you're ferociously defending a system that was created by other imperfect humans. Have some flexibility and please refrain from the slippery slope arguments about complete deconstruction. That is the most absurd bit I I read in this long list of comments. I dislike the word "conversate" as much as the next girl, but the fundamentals of language suggest that if enough people use a word or phrase, it will become part of vernacular and then proper diction. It will creep up on some scholar and start popping into peer reviewed articles and everyone will stop caring and it will be normalized...

By the way, for bruschetta, how many of you say brew-shedda and how many of you say brew-skate-ah? The second one is correct...at least according to formal Italian. I can't tell you how many intelligent people I meet who just don't know what they don't know.

In the end, if you're too attached to your high horse, do some reading about the theory of multiple intelligences and expand your understanding of the human experience in order to breed empathy and better guide your heart in these situations. Being ruled by your ego, insecurity, fear, and even sense of tradition makes you sound far more infantile than any simple colloquial telephonic reception.

Be well,
Eliza

LEW Jul-26-2017

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I was taught in school, "This is she." One way to completely dodge the issue would be the following scenario:
Hello, may I speak to Jane Doe?
Yes, This is Mrs. Doe (or Jane).

Tdream Sep-14-2017

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Ok, genius. Good luck." ??
My mom was a writer for the New Yorker magazine. We used to sit around the table and edit her stories over and over before submitting to the editor. I was about 10 yrs old. So, no I don't need an editor and I don't need your snarky comment either. I came here for a little help with her/she because mom is gone now and I don't have her on speed-dial anymore.

Even if you could answer my question, I'm not interested.

user111032 Sep-21-2021

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

that should be "What about languages without prescriptive manuals" of course...

John_Anderson Feb-26-2008

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Do you have a question? Submit your question here