The pronoun I generally indicates that the self is the actor, whereas the pronoun me generally indicates that the self is being or will be acted upon. I tends to fit with subject, while me is regarded as object -- as in "I verb object" and "Subject verb me"?
So then, what of the supposedly proper response, "It is I" to the question "Who is there?" ? Doesn't that appear to break our little rule?
I daresay that we get that formality from "It is I who am at the door," where "I who" is the subject of a sentence-like clause. Yet, the clause cannot be used as a stand-alone sentence, thus making the analogy iffy.
On the other hand most of us would accept the abbreviated response "I am" for "I am the person at your door."
Now as for the reply, "It's me," note that the form of the sentence is correct. "Me" falls under object. Suppose one says, "The person in question is I." Definitely not! It should be, "The person in question is me." So why should there be any difference when we substitute it for the person in question?
It is plainly a mental space-holder, either used as an abbreviation of a subject recently expressed or as another word for a "something" that we wish not to define very clearly, as in "It is raining." (Though "Rain is falling" sounds better to my ear, many would think it sounds stilted or even foreign.)
In any case, if the question is "Who am I to expect?", would it be improper to reply, "It is me that you are to expect" or "It is me whom you are to expect"? Turn it around and see: "You are to expect me."
Now we come upon the nicety of the conjunction that versus who/whom. I won't discuss that one at length, but only note that if one, in response to "Who is there?", replies "It is me that is at the door," this doesn't sound bad, but the reply "It is me who is at the door" might sound uneducated.
Similarly, we have such forms as "It is I whom you seek," versus the snappier, "You seek me." Yet when one says, "It is me that you seek," I'll be go-to-heck if I know who is on top: I or me. I'd no doubt duck behind, "I am the one you seek."
Me, I vote for "I am."
So then, what of the supposedly proper response, "It is I" to the question "Who is there?" ? Doesn't that appear to break our little rule?
I daresay that we get that formality from "It is I who am at the door," where "I who" is the subject of a sentence-like clause. Yet, the clause cannot be used as a stand-alone sentence, thus making the analogy iffy.
On the other hand most of us would accept the abbreviated response "I am" for "I am the person at your door."
Now as for the reply, "It's me," note that the form of the sentence is correct. "Me" falls under object. Suppose one says, "The person in question is I." Definitely not! It should be, "The person in question is me." So why should there be any difference when we substitute it for the person in question?
It is plainly a mental space-holder, either used as an abbreviation of a subject recently expressed or as another word for a "something" that we wish not to define very clearly, as in "It is raining." (Though "Rain is falling" sounds better to my ear, many would think it sounds stilted or even foreign.)
In any case, if the question is "Who am I to expect?", would it be improper to reply, "It is me that you are to expect" or "It is me whom you are to expect"? Turn it around and see: "You are to expect me."
Now we come upon the nicety of the conjunction that versus who/whom. I won't discuss that one at length, but only note that if one, in response to "Who is there?", replies "It is me that is at the door," this doesn't sound bad, but the reply "It is me who is at the door" might sound uneducated.
Similarly, we have such forms as "It is I whom you seek," versus the snappier, "You seek me." Yet when one says, "It is me that you seek," I'll be go-to-heck if I know who is on top: I or me. I'd no doubt duck behind, "I am the one you seek."
Me, I vote for "I am."
WE HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER BLOGGER SITE:
ReplyDeleteinvisiblepaul@blogger.com