Does the use of "this is her" instead of "this is she" obscure, or create any confusion about, the intended meaning?

No?

Then why does it matter if "her" is used rather than "she"?

"Elizabet's comments above are the last and best words on

the topic."

Psst, John...

QED!

"My college Theme Error Rules say to separate two descriptive adjectives that describe the same noun with a comma."

And we all know something called "Theme Error Rules" must be correct.

After all, they're "college" rules!

"Elizabet's comments above are the last and best words on

the topic."

Yes master.

"Some people here are arguing that common usage does not make something grammatically correct, but no one has provided any evidence to back up this claim."

Because that's the nature of many people's approach to grammar, John. It's based largely on the philosophy of "it's-wrong-because-it-is" followed by some sort of diktat on "correct useage."

Look at the response above that labelled me not "incorrect" but "totally incorrect" as if that statement alone was sufficient and authoritative.

"Jim [sic], while I'm sure you think you are very clever, unfortunately, you are totally incorrect. In the English lanuage, the infinitive form of all verbs is 'to '. The word 'to' is very definitely part of the infinitive. Without it, there's no infinitive. To run, to eat, to sleep, etc., are all infinitives, not run, eat, sleep."

OK, answer me this then: what are "run", "eat" and "sleep" in the following examples?

I will run the generator again tomorrow

Steve couldn't eat his breakfast

Let the dog sleep on the bed

"Infinitives should also not be split. For example:

'....to not be late' is incorrect

'...not to be late' is correct.

You are splitting the infinitive 'to be'."

Actually, you're right. You can't split an infinitive in English. To do that, you'd have to say something like:

"to gboldlyo" for "to boldly go"

In the construction "to+verb," the prepositional marker "to" is not the infinitive; the verb itself is.

"If it were true then 'little blue bull' would be unusual (which it's not) and 'blue little bull' would be the norm (which it's not)."

Except "little" shares more alliteration with "blue" and "bull" than "red" does with "big" and "bull."

Also, "blue" and "bull" are more alliterative than "big" and "bull."

That's why both "little blue bull" and "blue little bull" work: they sound harmonic. A country and western lyric or children's song, perhaps?

It doesn't hurt that "blue" has a meaning beyond colour either.

Hogwash yourself.

"Quite clearly it is possible for many speakers to be less than fluent in their native tongue according to such a definition."

There are really only two groups of native speakers who might not be considered completely fluent in their own language:

1. Children still at the stage of having the language "inculcated" in them.

2. Persons with mental or physical conditions which impede their ability to speak.

"However, why one would wish to remain less than fluent in one's native tongue strikes me as peculiar."

Exactly how does not using the subjunctive forms (such as they are) make one "less than fluent in one's native tongue"?