Actually, Amazed, the fact that there is still a heated debate means that there IS NO consensus, which, um, is exactly what I said isn't it?? that the term is ambiguous!!

Furthermore, an ongoing debate in this forum doesn't mean that there isn't consensus in society. Just look it up in the dictionary. Even there, it says that it's ambiguous. The consensus is that there is no consensus! (How can something so simple become so complicated?)

No, X. Harsh is absolutely correct. Blacklace is absolutely wrong. Verbs can be action verbs or state-of-being verbs. There is no such rule that state-of-being verbs have to take an object.

Your confusion might be arising because some verbs are copula, which, rather than take objects, state equivalence, i.e., "A is B", means the same as "B is A", and neither A or B is the "object".

HOWEVER, most words have more than one meaning and many copula are copula for some meanings and not others. When it's copulative, the verb "to be" requires two nouns, but when it means "to exist", it is NOT copulative and requires only a subject. This is not because existing is an action verb. It is because existence is a state of being that is NOT a comparison between two things. "I am a golfer" is stating an equivalence between me and golfers. "I am", as in "I think, therefore I am" means mean "I exist". SAME WORD. DIFFERENT DEFINITION. NOT COPULATIVE. NOT TRANSITIVE. FULL SENTENCE. If "I exist" is a full sentence (which it is - I would never say, I exist happy, or I exist a golfer), then so is "I am"! Asserting one's own existence is a complete thought, valid grammatically and philosophically.

John, I have to disagree. "me" or "not me" isn't a complete sentence, so it is not true that you are using "me" as the subject. You would say, "I am", not "me am". Also, while it's a little old fashioned, "not I" is also acceptable. Every English speaking child knows the story of Chicken Little: "Who will help me bake the bread? Not I, said the cat. Not I, said the pig..."

Wiggy, you are correct. Stratum is the singular, strata is the plural. Sometimes technical subjects have their own vocabulary, but not in this case. Do note, however, that it's "math lesson" and "math teacher", not "maths lesson" and "maths teacher". You don't want to make the very same mistake as your teacher!

Excellent post, John. I thought this one would never get solved.

I did miss that Bob, thanks. Of course, what precipitated my comment was Keith saying that he hadn't thought of it as unusual UNTIL NOW. So consider this an expansion of my comment to both address Xiphos and reassure Keith.

Actually, Chuckret, when one says "each and every one of you", the words "every" and "one" are two separate words. It's not the word "everyone" at all. Think of it as "each one of you and every single one of you" If it were a single word "everyone" then the "...of you" wouldn't make any sense.

Keith, no one is saying "by mistake" is unusual. Everyone says it. That is the normal idiom. The unusual idiom being debated is "on accident".

Thank you, Blackstubble. You are correct. I posted the very same point in this very thread in March of '06 (and elsewhere). The idea that copula must link only nominative to nominative is a misunderstanding. They simply link like cases:

Who do you believe that he is? I believe that he is I.
Whom do you believe him to be? I believe him to be me.

Taken from:

http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html

(also posted above)

Oh, and while we're at it, the "rule" about not ending sentences in prepositions is also a complete fiction. Any (and every) grammar book will say that it is allowed, in some cases non-preferred, but sometimes unavoidable.

"Much learning hath made thee mad" is from the Bible, Acts 26:24, said by Festus, the governor of Judea, after hearing St. Paul's defense for blasphemy.