I did a little research and this is what I came up with. Gee, you learn something new every day. The verb "to be" is a copulative verb, not a transitive verb. As such, it connects two noun phrases of the same case. "To be" isn't necessarily followed by the nominative case, but rather, the case before and after the "to be" must match. Now, here's where I think it gets interesting. "It" can be either nominative or
accusative. It really depends on the rest of the sentence. Irina's post below is a perfect example of this. If there is no "rest of the sentence", then I would think either could be correct. I vaguely recall learning in gradeschool that either was ok.

for more on this see:

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

Gee, Graeme, you were a little vague. Are you saying that your boss proofreads your documents, instructs you to insert a second space, you tell him you will, then you purposely don't do it? If he notices the missing space the first time, what makes you so sure that he isn't aware of your insubordination? Clearly there are differing points of view on this, and clearly your place of employment has its own desired style. If you worked for me, I'd fire your ass.

I'm afraid I must disagree with everything posted below.

Both words have more than one meaning. While they are not identical, they do overlap, and, in some definitions, they are synonyms, meaning exactly the same thing.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

tr.v. en·ti·tled
To give a name or title to

tr.v. ti·tled
To give a title to; entitle.

This dictionary actually DEFINES the word titled to mean entitled. How much clearer can you be?

Now, there are other definitions of both words that don't overlap, some of which are mentioned below, but the usage you ask about is the very one that is synonymous, so you are completely correct to use either interchangeably.

Both "titled" and "entitled" are verbs and both are adjectives as well. Furthermore, your example of "entitled" below, was not demonstrating use as a verb, but as an adjective. While they both have several definitions, they do overlap, and in some cases (particularly regarding the original question) are listed as synonyms with identical definitions.

Suzanne, I'm afraid that the term IS ambiguous. From Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (just what I happen to have on hand at this moment):

First-Generation (adj.)
1 - designating a naturalized, foreign-born citizen of a country
2 - designating a native-born citizen of a country whose parents had immigrated into that country

If you had actually read the postings below you would have seen that Dykse has already posted this from a definitive source. I would think that would have ended the discussion.

So... how are you coming to the conclusion that the use of definition 2 is incorrect? Have you published your own internationally accepted dictionary that has superceded all others?

Oh, also reminds me of another pet peeve: the use of "orientated" instead of "oriented".

Iwould take issue with one thing, Anna. If you've heard anyone use the word, then, by definition, they are NOT highly educated.

This also reminds me of some other clever plays on words:

in music, augminished and demented chords

Humongous (really large)

Gi-huge-ant (really, really large)

a similar previous post:

http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.asp?id=500

My reply reproduced here:

When I was in grade school, some 35 or 40 years ago, the word irregardless was not in the dictionary. At the time, it was not considered a word. Today, it is listed in the dictionary. While it might be listed as, slang, vulgar, colloquial, or obscene, it most definitely has become a word. I would suggest avoiding its use if you want to appear educated.
This reminds me, if boning a chicken means to take out the bones, what is deboning? putting the bones back in?

Dykse, You were completely 100% correct and your friend is simply wrong.

From www.dictionary.com (American Heritage Dictionary):

1 - Appetizing to the taste or smell: a savory stew.
2 - Piquant, pungent, or salty to the taste; not sweet.
3 - Morally respectable; inoffensive: a past that was scarcely savory.

Note, definition 2 is EXACTLY the way you used it. It can also be used as a noun.

My English Mother-in-law refers to meat, chicken, etc., (all "main dish" type items) as savory in contrast to sweet desserty type things. I suspect this is more common in the UK than in the USA (I rarely hear the word "savory" used in ANY context).

If we take what you wrote quite literally, then maybe your friend is another issue. Did he really suggest that you should not use a word simply because he wasn't familiar with it? A bit cheeky, don't you think? Many others would be confused just because he was? I think my pomposity meter just hit full scale.

Stupidity, George? The team was formed in 1917, but wasn't called the Maple Leafs until 1926 when the new owner, Conn Smythe, renamed it after the Maple Leaf Regiment from WWI. Since the proper name of the group is "Maple Leaf Regiment", Leafs, not Leaves would be grammatically correct.

I have to agree with Peter Cooper and Kurt. It doesn't necessarily have any negative connotation. More often it involves a personal choice, each with its own advantages. Having more influence in a smaller town, company etc. can seem more personally rewarding than getting lost in a sea of anonymity. On the other hand, there may be more resources, opportunites, and excitement in the bigger pond.