“This is she” vs. “This is her”

Holy crap, I was reading the beginning and saw it was from 2006, then I scrolled down and it's still going on. It's been 9 years! If one of the original posters had a child, that child would now be in 4th grade and could probably also offer insight into this debate.

@polisny - I'm afraid you lost me at "diachronic lexicon", and then again at "referential indexicality". I teach English and run a grammar blog and have a pretty reasonable grasp of grammatical terms, but you seem to delight in using highly specialist terminology, which I would suggest is rather out of place here, (a "bound relative clause", for example, is known to most of the world and his dog simply as a relative clause), or feel the need to explain at great length concepts we are well aware of , such as subject complements.

Sorry to say this, but I might be more interested in reading what you have to say if you used a bit of plain English, in perhaps a rather more concise way, and I didn't feel I was being spoken down to the whole time.

@Warsaw Will,

well, you did apply the verb to delight advisedly, and you were right to do so. I de not delight, generally, in using terms for their sake. The term diachronic opposes synchronic and is used in lexicography, among other domains. It only refers to a dictionary that records a language historically versus at present only. The OED is one such dictionary. All you have to do is ask if a term is used and you don't understand it, or consult a dictionary, of course. I didn't impose the term as some kind of "infelicity."

Also, no, a bound relative clauses was stated as such for a reason. If you go back and look, you'll see that it contrasted other kinds of relative clause. There is not merely one kind of relative clause.

Also, yes, I do explain at length concepts you yourself might be aware of. However, I take expression seriously enough that I try to account for what I say rather than expecting others to assume what is meant, which isn't their job. If you'll recall, the thread is entitled the way it is for a reason. Not that you speak for everyone in the thread, nor even the majority, but if everyone knew what a complement were I doubt the thread would have been put up in the first place. Nonetheless, it's gotten some attention over the years, and I suspect that such is partly the reason.

Finally, referential indexicality wasn't addressed to you, although I did explain what it means given that it is a term. Had you contextualized my reply, you'd have seen that it wasn't meant for you but for the person who responded after you. I entertained the possibility that their message had been intended as some kind of rebuttal to what I previously wrote of gerunds.

I hadn't intended on condescending to you.

Sorry for the few errors in my reply, I can't edit them. I am also an English teacher and imagine that I enjoy quibbling over English just as much as the next teacher. I'm also a writer and probably like yourself spend a lot of my time debating and learning. It's fun!

@polisny - My point about the expression 'bound relative clause' was that it is rare outside specialist circles - indeed I would call it jargon, while 'relative clause' is pretty well common currency. On Google, there are a mere 400 hits for "bound relative clause" ( a thousand times that for relative clause, and none at all on Ngram.

In most grammar teaching outside linguistics, bound relative clauses ("the type most often considered" - Wikipedia) are simply referred to as relative clauses, although divided into defining and non-defining, or other similar expressions: restrictive / non-restrictive, identifying / identifying, and ocasionally sentential and co-ordinating. Yes in linguistics, bound relative clauses contrast with free relative clauses: "What I want is ..., All I said was ...", but we usually call them nominal relative clauses, and deal with them separately.

I couldn't say either. I would say "that is me". I don't know if that is correct English or not, but I will bend the language to avoid pompous sounding expressions like "John and I" and will use the incorrect "me and John". Maybe it just sounds so against my working class upbringing. If I can find a third alternative, or any way of avoiding these pompous expressions, I will use that, otherwise I will use the incorrect expression, knowing that some idiot will say it is wrong.....

Warsaw, a lot of people seem unaware of the value of propositions, and clauses are certainly part of most propositions. As a writer, I can also agree that it is very important to know your clauses. Such allows for much better punctuation at the very least. Sadly, because there are as many grammars and grammarians as there are and have been in English, we get several terms for that which is more or less the same thing. Look at a matrix clause, independent clause, main clause, superordinate clause, and so forth. Again, I stress [more or less]. While one such term may be used more by one school or grammar; or more in linguistics than teaching as a profession, my using bound relative clause (versus free relative clause) was only meant as contrast, not pedantry or arrogance. I'd definitely prefer having one term "per phenomenon" to ten terms per phenomenon, even if there are such subtle differences between their usages as there sometimes are.

She and her father look alike
or
Her and her father look alike

This is one I hear so many times that they both sound incorrect to me, so when someone calls and asks for me I simply say "speaking" or "this is Lori." Problem solved. If I had to choose one, this is her seems more logical.. such as to imply, this is her speaking.

I play a game with my grandchild: Put her blanket over her head and ask where she is...she pulls it down and I say "there her is!" Is this correct English?

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.

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).

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

....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!

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"I use she and I. "This is she" when answering the phone, or " this is I" or "it is I" as well. I have children of school age that I want to go to college, I want them to go far in life. I try to prevent them from using slang, especially today's slang which is just horrible, because as they grow older and go on interviews and go into the business world, I want them to sound intelligent and for them to stand out. I do not think using proper English is snobbery, but I do think it might be becoming a lost art."

Roz Oct-05-2011

The problem with this is it ISN'T correct. People are saying "this is she and she is this" are interchangeable. Lets change one parameter. You are pointing out a friend to someone you want to introduce her to. "That is she" isn't right.
I have the sneaking suspicion you would say "Would you like to go to the store with Tom and I?" is correct. It is not. "Would you like to go to the store with I"? It's called an object of the prepostion. Object. Obejective form of 1st person singular is "me"
English is Subject+Verb+Object. Not Subject+Verb+Subject.
It sounds classy and elegant to you, but it ignores the basic rules of grammar.

“this is her” makes more sense to me.

lets look at the conversation as if we are in a room.

lets assign person 1 as the one asking and person 2 as the one answering.

person 1: “can i speak to anna?” (in case P1 doesnt know anna) or if P1 knows anna then P1 points to anna and say “can i speak to her?” P1 and not “can i speak to she?”

person 2 answers back: (in case P1 doesnt know anna) points to anna and say “that is her” and not “that is she” or in case anna is right next to P2 then P2 say “this is anna” or “this is her” and not “this is she”.

now if P2 is anna then it makes sense to me and its sounds right to hear it as “this is her”

please enlighten me. thanks

Quick Question:

(1) This is she, who is speaking.
(2) This is her, to whom you are speaking.

Are both of those sentences grammatically correct, or only the first one? If the 2nd is not grammatically incorrect, then I could see answering the phone with an abbreviated version of that implied longer sentence, shortening it to "This is her...".

If the 2nd sentence is grammatically incorrect, would the correct formulation then be: "This is she, to whom you are speaking?"

"this is she that is speaking" => "this is she speaking"

"this is her (type of) speaking" => possessive

My dearest, Eliza,

Thank you. I was beginning to lose hope as my brain melted while scrolling, waiting for someone to point out the need to remember the deeper sentiments of WHY we care about this debate in the first place…and then there you were.

Thank you. For not only did you make that point, but your point made you. It was like a love letter made of silk, written to language itself.

Your Nabokovian demonstration restored something good in me. Not that I have any authority to do so, but I declare you a true master of language.

Sincerely,
Someone

Language is a way to connect to each other and life. And… It can also be art. We are free to play with it. As everyone is doing here.

While the answer to the question, “Which is correct?” is apparently far more debatable than I ever thought possible (I say looking at the years of comments), I think our individual answers to the question, “How do you prefer to speak and why?” are suddenly seeming far juicier in comparison. We’d actually get to know each other.

Also, I’m acknowledging that I’m using some pretty bonkers grammar in this comment. Good night.

"This is she" and "she is this" actually don't mean the same thing, therefore they are not interchangeable, and this simple fact shuts down the second source's argument. In "this is her" you are talking about "this" and in "she is this" you are talking about "she". I don't know any better way to explain this other than this coming up example, so bare with me. If I have the power that makes anything I say come true, saying "this is her" would cause "this" to transform into "her", this would become her, but if I say, "she is this", "she" would become "this".

“This is she,” is correct. When using a linking verb like be (is), the pronoun becomes reflexive back upon the subject noun. In such a case, “she” is not the object, it is reflexive back upon “this.” This is what’s called a predicate nominative. Now… if you use a regular action verb (sees, greets, kills, comforts, etc), the pronoun becomes a direct object. In such a case, it would be “her.” Throw everything out the window of you subscribe to the modern “woke’ pronouns, which make a mockery of proper English. I digress…

“This is she” is correct. A linking verb cannot take an object, so a pronoun following a linking verb must be in the nominative case.