Grammar rules vs. evolving usage

It is I, addressing a grammar question. Or should that be “it is me”?

Reader Paula Mochel of Studio City would argue that the first sentence is correct. She complained that the headline on Saturday’s Column One article by Robyn Dixon, which read “Now it’s just him and the refugees,” was ungrammatical:

“I would have failed my sixth grade grammar test, if I had written that headline. That it appeared on the front page, above the fold of a major newspaper is a dagger in the heart of everyone who values beautiful English. The rules are not hard compared to many languages. Can't one count on the Los Angeles Times to conform to the most basic rules of our language?”

According to Mochel, the headline should have read “Now it’s just he and the refugees.”

However, the language is evolving. And those hard and fast rules that were taught in school sometimes become a little squishy.

Most grammarians agree that this is one of those rules.

In “A Dictionary of Modern American Usage,” author Bryan A. Garner writes:

Generally, of course, the nominative pronoun is the complement of a linking verb: "This is she," "It was he." But "it is me" and "it’s me" are fully acceptable, especially in informal contexts.

To make his point, Garner quotes Norman Lewis’ “Better English”: “Both forms, ‘It is I’ and ‘It is me,’ are correct – one by virtue of grammatical rule, the other by virtue of common educated usage.”

Mignon Fogarty, author of “Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing,” addresses the issue on her blog:

The traditional grammar rule states when a pronoun follows a linking verb, such as is, it should be in the subject case. That means it is correct to say, "It is I," and "It was he who dropped the phone in shock when Jodie answered, 'This is she.' "

That is the traditional rule, but fortunately most grammarians forgive you for not following the rule. … Unless you're answering the phone for the English department at the University of Chicago or responding to a Supreme Court judge, it's OK to use what sounds right and therefore, "That's me" is an acceptable answer.

Patricia T. O’Conner, author of “Woe Is I,” includes this rule in a list of grammar myths on her blog, Grammarphobia:

Rule:  Use "It is I," not "It is me."

Here's another ordinance that's out of date. It's OK to use It is me, That's him, It's her, and similar constructions, instead of using the grammatically correct but more stuffy It is I, That's he, and It's she.

And as she says in “Woe Is I”:

Next time you identify the perp in a police lineup, feel free to point dramatically and say, "That’s him, Officer!"

Or in this case, the newspaper may point to a South African minister and say “It is him.”

-- Deirdre Edgar

Twitter: @LATreadersrep

Comments

[John Vasi]

I don't consider myself stuffy, but I think there's no reason to abandon good grammar, especially in a written headline. On something as clear as a subject following the verb, "to be", I don't the Times should slide into common usage over correct grammar. Is correct grammar determined by how the majority speaks?

Would the Times still use "him" if the headline read: "It's him who made a grammatical mistake."? There's a reason rules exist, and how something sounds is not way to decide if it's correct.

Your article says that "most grammarians" agree that "him" is correct. I'll best most people ignorant of grammar rules also agree. Does that mean that when the majority of people agree, the rule changes? Since most people spell "all right" as "alright", is it time for a new rule there as well? "Nu kyoo ler" is getting very popular too. Shall we make fun of those stuffed shirts that pronounce it the way it's spelled?

[Mark Allen]

We abandon grammar rules all the time, and sometimes we make up new ones. To Mr. Vasi's question about rules changing when a majority agree, I would say that is exactly how our Democratic language works. Perhaps not a simple majority on the first ballot, but if enough people decide we ought to speak a certain way, there is little we language defenders can do to stop them. If a rule is logical, grammarians can mount the podium and make a case against change. But there is not overwhelming logic for "the nominative pronoun is the complement of a linking verb." Why is that necessary when the sentence already has the subject "it"?

"It's him who made a grammatical mistake" is a fun sentence to play with. It sounds wrong. But logically? The verb is "is." If the person making the grammatical mistake were not in the nominative form, the pronoun would be the object (as the word that comes after the verb usually is). "Who made the grammatical mistake? Him." So you could say the nominative case rule actually is an exception to another rule.

"All right," by the way, is only two words because it became a common expression after spelling was standardized and not before, as with its cousin "already." Give it time.

[John Vasi]

I understand that what I write or what someone else writes is probably not going to change anyone's mind, but I do want to respond to Mark Allen's response to my earlier post.

The reason I used the example, "It's him who made a grammatical mistake.", was to illustrate that how something sounds should not determine whether it's an accepted grammatical construction. Mr. Allen says "It sounds wrong", but then hypothesizes about nominative and objective cases. However, my point is that one should not abandon a grammatical rule when it sounds right and then embrace the rule when a sentence sounds very wrong. (e.g. It's him who made a grammatical mistake.)

Secondly, but in the same vein, I don't buy Mr. Allen's argument that "alright" is a cousin to "already". If there is a corollary to "all right", it's "all wrong"--and that has nothing to do with standardized spelling. "Alright" is becoming accepted only because many people spell it incorrectly, and that's not a reason to change the spelling. That would be alwrong, wouldn't it, Mr. Allen?

[Steve Smith]

To me, it's one of those instances where the correct version sounds pretensious so a less formal turn of phrase becomes the correct option. I have much more of an issue with the first sentence of this report than the first sentence of the article to which it refers. I see the meaning, but it's confusing to say she's arguing that the sentence is correct when she's clearly arguing that it's incorrect.

[Eric Bakall]

What kind of English language usage is the following from Bill Dwyre's column re: Tiger Woods?" You can't be able to hit a two-iron 250 yards and straight and not play again. The golf gods won't allow that."