@Skeeter Lewis - As we are often on opposite sides in these dicussions, I took your comment at face value. But I'm now beginning to wonder if your comment wasn't perhaps meant to be ironic, in which case I take that back.

"It's true - dear old Will does try to bludgeon us to death with his tolerance." - so a mere one person standing up for a different view to the one held (and oft repeated) by the majority (which now seems to consist of about four people) is"bludgeoning you to death" is it? I am glad that the spirit of open debate is still alive and kicking.

First of all, this question was about the use of 'whom', and as this is probably the single area where traditional formal grammar is most out of kilter with normal spoken English, I think that my point there was totally relevant. Tell me honestly, who among you would say 'Whom did he want to meet?'

If I repeat the point about usage, it is because this is one of the few language forums where this is not considered important.

I may have been a bit critical of Jason's example sentences, but that was because I genuinely didn't understand them, so had some difficulty in the point he was making.

You may have noticed that activity on this forum has been pretty sparse lately, and if the intolerance now being shown by some people to those with opposing views is to prevail, I can't see this situation getting much better. From now on I'll choose the threads I comment on rather more carefully. And I don't think this will be one of them.

Beat you to it HS - http://painintheenglish.com/case/5118 - apparently it's quite common in something close to your ex-line of business - tech companies.

One swallow doesn't make a summer!

Wow! Someone got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. But I'll ignore all the negative stuff and try and answer some of your points:

I'm sorry you think that some arbitrary rules that hardly any educated speakers actually follow in spoken language (which is definitely the case with 'whom') are more important than the natural idiomatic language the majority of educated speakers actually speak.

What you call 'standard grammar' is in effect formal grammar, and it is not, for example, the definition used by linguists. And my position on this is not simply of EFL, but of modern linguistics in general.

You say: No, "who" is not the subject of "am", but "I" is. This is basic subject-operator inversion common in interrogative sentences; if it were "who is going to the mall", then yes, but here, no.

Well, that is contentious to say the least. As your example shows, 'standard subject-operator inversion' is not used when 'who' refers to the subject. Why should it be any different with 'be'?

'Who hit Mandy?' subject + verb + direct object
'Who is Mandy?' subject + verb + subject complement

This is from your StackExchange link: 'Notice that there is nothing in between the auxiliary "will" and the verb "be", and so, that means that there hasn't been any subject-auxiliary inversion, and that means that the subjects are "Which" and "What". '

We could both find opinions here to support our argument, but these are both only forums: they prove nothing.

As for your other examples - you say 'How hard are they to understand?' And you give the example: 'For "I am who to be", think of it as some king standing over his people and saying this sentence to mean: emulate me, aspire to be my glory.' Well, I think that's stretching it a bit, but OK when it's explained it might be possible . But I doubt anybody actually speaks like that. There are precisely two examples in the whole Internet, neither of which have this meaning, and both of which sound distinctly odd - .

'For thy guiding hand of thee, Thou I am who to be proud'
'Who are you who do not know that I am who to be set to create him as a Prophet'

And the others:

“I am he to judge.” - one example - 'I am he to judge and he to know, I am he to rain justice upon the masses and conquer ALL!' - but one swallow doesn't make a swallow.

“I am him to judge” - no examples outside this forum

“I am he to be.” - a handful, mostly either from foreigners or misprints

(Now "I am not the one to judge" I would understand)

“I am him to be.” - no examples outside this forum, but at a pinch I could imagine Jesus saying it in the KJV (but it doesn't occur in any books)

These simply are not idiomatic English, to my ear, but more the sort of thing Yoda might come out with. But if that's what floats your boat, who am I to argue - or should that be 'whom', perhaps?

Here are a couple of (I would suggest more realistic) examples 'who' + 'be' + infinitive, where I think we can more or less rule out 'whom' (see the respective Ngram graphs):

'Who is he to tell me what to do?'
'Who am I to be treated this way?'

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Who+is+he+to%2CWhom+is+he+to&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWho%20is%20he%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWhom%20is%20he%20to%3B%2Cc0

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Who+am+I+to%2CWhom+am+I+to&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWho%20am%20I%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWhom%20am%20I%20to%3B%2Cc0

“Whom did he want to meet?” - Does anyone actually say that? Conversationally? Apart from in radio dramas, etc.

I have very grave doubts about your opening premise, beloved by certain grammar sites, that if the answer is 'him', it must be 'whom'. The fact is that 'whom' is rarely used in spoken English, either in direct questions or in relative clauses - . In EFL, we teach that the only time you need to use it is after a preposition. Formal written work is another matter, of course, but that's not the place I'd expect to find a sentence like “Whom did he want to meet?”, except in dialogue.

But for the sake of the game:

1 - “Who am I to judge?” - this is such a well-known expression there should be no question of using 'whom' - in any case 'who' is the subject here (not 'I'), so 'whom' would be plain wrong.

2 - “I am who/whom to be.” - sorry, but I have no idea what's going on here, nor for the rest of sentences 1a to 2d, which as far as I'm concerned, simply aren't English.

[2a'] “I am the person (who) you should be.” (U)
[2b'] “I am the person (whom) you should be.” (A)

I can't agree with your classifications here. I know we say things like 'What would you do if you were me?', but in this case 'who' is more natural - 'whom' is hardly ever used in restrictive relative clauses, even with non-copular verbs - 'He's the person who you should see' is much more natural then 'He's the person whom you should see'.

Actually the most natural thing is to leave the relative pronoun out altogether, which you can always do in restrictive relative clauses when it refers to the object - 'I am the person you should be.', 'He's the person you should see.' - problem solved!

As jayles says 'It is I who am (the boss around here)' is standard (or more likely - 'It's me who's the boss around here'). But it's not anything to do with coming after the copular verb: it's because 'who' is the subject of the following verb.

The need for a second verb to have a subject overrides everything else. Here's a common error (according to traditional grammar) - 'Whom shall I say is calling?' - take away 'shall I say' and the real question is 'Who is calling?' - the need for 'calling' to have a subject overrides the need for 'say' to have an object.

In - 'Who am I to be?' (again, rather a strange sentence) 'who' is simply the subject of 'am', not the subject complement / object of 'to be'. Perhaps a more natural example using exactly the same construction - 'OK. Who's it to be? Mandy or Sandy?' - Nobody would ever say 'Whom is it to be?'

There seems to be some confusion over subject complements and subjects here. When 'who' comes at the beginning of an interrogative sentence before 'be', it is always the subject. Even the most purist grammarian can only use 'whom' when another word appears before the verb as a subject, as in your example - 'Whom did he want to meet?'

But life's so much easier when you forget about 'whom' altogether.

@Jasper - on Ngram, 'count your chickens' is soaring, and 'your eggs in one basket' is holding steady, if fluctuating a bit - http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=count+your+chickens%2Cyour+eggs+in+one+basket&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccount%20your%20chickens%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cyour%20eggs%20in%20one%20basket%3B%2Cc0

@jayles (the un-nothing this time) - Ngram links with asterisks don't work on PITE.

@HS - Re kettle, that would have been my hunch too, but it doesn't even show up in the Ngram British books selection.

"A watched pot never boils" is still pretty active on Ngram, especially if you shorten it to "A watched pot". Milton Friedman may have used "There's no such thing as a free lunch" for the title of one of his books, but the expression goes back at least to 1943. It may have been used by the ultra-free-market right, but it had never occurred to me to have any particular political meaning before I read your comment, just common sense; a case of the devil having the best tunes, perhaps.

There are many proverbs where we often only use part of the proverb, for example "When in Rome" or "the last (or final) straw" (when did you last hear anyone mention the poor camel?). But you need to try the right short version (comments refer to Ngram) -

"Birds of a feather" shows double that of "Birds of a feather flock" - relatively stable
"When the going gets tough" shows ten times that of "the tough get going" - soaring
"Two wrongs" nearly double "Two wrongs don't make" - pretty stable
"two many cooks" more than double "two many cooks spoil" - long term gradual increase

"Every cloud has a silver lining is a case in point" - "silver lining" has by far replaced "every cloud" as the most popular form, and has been on the up since 1960 or so. The full proverb is relatively rare.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=every+cloud%2Cevery+cloud+has+a+silver%2Csilver+lining&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cevery%20cloud%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bevery%20cloud%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEvery%20cloud%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEvery%20Cloud%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cevery%20cloud%20has%20a%20silver%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BEvery%20cloud%20has%20a%20silver%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bevery%20cloud%20has%20a%20silver%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEvery%20Cloud%20has%20a%20Silver%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEvery%20Cloud%20Has%20a%20Silver%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEVERY%20CLOUD%20HAS%20A%20SILVER%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Csilver%20lining%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bsilver%20lining%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSilver%20Lining%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSILVER%20LINING%3B%2Cc0

I'd be interested to know how they judge these to be "the fifty most important" proverbs. There are a couple I've never heard of, such as "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "Fortune favours the bold" (American, perhaps?)

Why no "last (or final) straw", I wonder, which according to Ngram has soared since 1960, as have "a book by its cover" (Ngram max 5 words) and "better safe than sorry". (Actually, these are in their next fifty).

In fact, when I try most of the ones I know, Ngram shows a healthy increase in use, so I think the answer to your original question is: not at all, they are "alive and kicking" (also on the up), but usually (where possible) in their abbreviated forms.

"When the going gets tough the tough get going" - this is pretty recent

Only three hits at Google Books for "when the going gets tough" before 1925, the earliest from 1883, but none with "the tough get going", so this seems to have started as the simple expression "when the going gets tough".

Especially associated with JFK and later Richard Nixon (he was apparently rather fond of the phrase), some of the earliest uses of the full proverb may have come from American football. A notice "prominently posted in the Michigan training room all during the week before the Minnesota game" in 1955 is the earliest example at Google Books, but coach Frank Leahy from the is quoted using it the year before, in the Charleston Daily Mail. Plenty of places attribute it to Joseph P Kennedy, JFK's father, and Wikipedia mentions another coach, Knute Rockne (1888-1931) - but nobody gives any dates for the these two.

It possibly had a precursor, though - "The tougher the going the tougher we get", from 1945.

One small thought: You'll find a lot more for "beggars can't be choosers" than "beggars can not be choosers".

Both seem quite popular on Facebook and Twitter - actual counts (front-page figure in brackets):

"beggars can't be choosers" - Facebook - 564 (19,900) Twitter - 499 (20,100)

"actions speak louder than words"- Facebook 541 (60,000) Twitter - 561 (61,900)

I imagine these are used more in spoken language than written, so it would be quite difficult to come up with a definitive answer. But Ngram shows an interesting difference in BrE and AmE - in BrE, "beggars can't be choosers"is at the same level as 1920, not much less than 75% of its peak level in in the late 30's and mid 40s. But in AmE, it's at it highest ever level. And according to Ngram, the use of "action speaks louder than words" has more than doubled since around 1970, in both AmE and BrE.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=beggars+can%27t+be+choosers%3Aeng_gb_2012%2Cactions+speak+louder+than+words%3Aeng_gb_2012%2Cbeggars+can%27t+be+choosers%3Aeng_us_2012%2Cactions+speak+louder+than+words%3Aeng_us_2012&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cbeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cactions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bactions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20Speak%20Louder%20than%20Words%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20Speak%20Louder%20Than%20Words%3Aeng_gb_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cbeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBeggars%20can%20not%20be%20choosers%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBeggars%20Can%20not%20Be%20Choosers%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cactions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bactions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20speak%20louder%20than%20words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20Speak%20Louder%20than%20Words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20Speak%20Louder%20Than%20Words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BACTIONS%20SPEAK%20LOUDER%20THAN%20WORDS%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BActions%20speak%20louder%20than%20Words%3Aeng_us_2012%3B%2Cc0