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 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 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

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

The point of creating and using grammar rules is to facilitate communication - to avoid being misunderstood. For example, to say, "I do not want a hamburger" does NOT mean that I want to avoid a hamburger; it merely means that I have no desire to possess one - I do not WANT one, but I would accept one. However, to say, "I want to not have a hamburger" means that I wish to avoid hamburger possession. I am a substitute teacher, and I hear sloppy statements all the time from teachers and students alike; these speakers run the risk of being misunderstood. If I were in a spaceship and was receiving instructions from NASA, I would hope the speaker on Earth would adhere to my standards, regardless of what is common vernacular.

Dan Barrett May-17-2017

0 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

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

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

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

What about the following situation? Would it be the same "equivalence"?
"Was Helen the murderer?"
"It was she?" or "It was her"?

Jay Kasey Sep-17-2017

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Surprise!!!! Both are wrong you can't say she or me for the first person. The answer is " Yes that's me".

S Salah Mar-08-2018

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

....it is most assuredly “THIS IS SHE”!.....my mother was an English teacher.....”is” implies a “state of being”, and that requires a “subjective pronoun”, even though it is in an “objective position” in the sentence!

user104966 May-15-2018

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I'm not 100% certain - but I think that him\her - is what is done to them; while he\she - is them. Thus she is speaking, and you speak to her.

user106981 Jun-22-2018

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Guys, there is no more argument that you can advance that will make you right when you say “but in Latin” or “but in primary school.”

No.

In English there is no academy so there is no authority to determine right and wrong. Justify the usage you have learned, fine. Have a bad attitude, fine. You won’t win. People say she and her just like people write centre and center. The right criterion is convention, and it is indeeed standard in the US to say this is him or this is them or so forth. In Great Britain, some regional variants argue for the subject pronoun by appealing to archaic, foreign grammar. That’s fine too. If in Great Britain some people want to say this is she and if they want to argue from false premises that copula this therefore that, let them. They’ll not change the American convention, they’ll not standardize the usage. You can explain to them al say that English isn’t based on one grammar but on several, still won’t matter to them.

polisny Jun-23-2018

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

There may be a rule, but what is its purpose? What clarity is gained (or ambiguity avoided) by preferring "This is she" to "This is her"? The usage has degraded for a reason—because there was never really any meaning behind the distinction and it's never caused anyone a problem.

Bartholomew Jul-05-2018

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"This is she" is the only correct answer. "Is" is a linking verb (to be form), and linking verbs are equivalent to "equal(s)". Thus This and she are equals, i.e., this=she. The answerer is saying "This is I". After the linking verbs "to be" is a predicate nominative - nominative form, not objective in this case.

user108388 Nov-07-2019

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Do you have a question? Submit your question here