“This is she” vs. “This is her”

Is "there her is! correct?

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"

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

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.

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.

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."

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

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

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).

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"?

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

....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

"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.

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.