Does 'who' refer to "it" or to "you"? It is, you are. You are so right! Actually, I like 'It is you who are wrong.'

Are we being awfully pedantic here?

Perhaps it is useful to ask how the word "that" translates into French: if as I insist it means "who" it is "qui" so if it is "qui" it is "who". "That" has another meaning entirely, translating as "que" and to use it in place of "who" is just plain sloppy.

Maybe that is why he is a Pastor.

Notice of two weeks = two weeks' notice. The apostrophe is there to indicate possession = of, as wendy says.

Yes Anwulf
I enjoy German, love it, performed with distinction in it at school, also its poor relation Afrikaans, which too is akin to your beloved Anglo-Saxon.
I think you are still regretting that these are not English, and English is not like these. Get over it; the Norman Conquest, the Renaissance and the Reformation changed the history of English and we are stuck with it. I like it, you do not. But wishing that English speakers would adopt your form of the language (ie leaving out all Latin-rooted vocabulary) is like asking us to all do Esperanto: daft!

Anwulf
"Under urgency!" Horror! Where do they get these phrases? Actually, probably out of the same box the UK police and public medical services got theirs. I heard one saying on television recently "four male persons were ...". And there are examples any time a spokesman has to explain to a camera at the scene of the crime or incident. I believe they are made to speak in this weird way to communicate clearly on crackly radios, like the air force in WW2. This may explain why such a person might say "the bullet exited on the right side" where "came out" would sound much better, but might be misunderstood. The Latin "exit" is clinical and ugly, and the Anglo-Saxon based "came out" or "left" suits informal occasions. "When you leave the hall" is good English, "When you exit the hall" is dreadful. "Exit stage left" is an ancient stage direction. Yes, it is a verb here, but like the air force radio-speak is surely not intended as normal language, any more than is the labelling on a box of goods "this way up" is meant to masquerade as an elegantly constructed English sentence.
Thanks for helping to clear up that thing about the swari.

Anwulf
you say you do not know what Latin has had to offer the English language: I reply that half its vocabulary might be the first consideration, and the one which lasts in memories of those who have learned it. (Same benefit passed on from Latin to French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian ...). And the history did us more harm than good? Maybe, but it is central to the history of Europe over the past 3000 years, so for good or ill it is madness to neglect it in the education of students, as it would be to leave out maths, history, geography, science ...
If Latin and Greek words are "grander" than Saxon ones, they should be used, and are available, when "grander" speech is called for, when it suits the occasion and is the better choice. The Norman brought some of this vocabulary with them 955 years ago, but most of it was introduced by the international interest in Romans/Latin aroused by the rediscovery of Pompeii, to give a boost to the scholarly tradition of treating Latin as the international language.
Some examples of failure to learn Latin-based words correctly: quote from today's newspaper: "I managed to dissipate his fears"(meaning dispel = drive away). Headline of a British newspaper last summer "Coruscating attack made on politician's speech" (meaning excoriating). His fears were exhausted/scattered/indulged in the pursuit of pleasure - I doubt it, and I doubt if the attack made on the speech was sparkling and dancing with light, given that it took place in the Scottish Parliament. Please suggest better Anglo-Saxon words for these!
German (cf Anglo-Saxon) is another wonderful and rich source of structure and vocabulary for us, although the vocabulary has diverged out of recognition. Much meatier and immediate, and usually more suitable for less formal expression than Latin-derived ones. Plenty of examples above, with which I have already agreed.

"C'est moi", rather than "C'est je." The grammatical explanation is that
"moi" is used here disjunctively, as "ce" is the subject, so "je" is the complement rather than the subject. "Me" and "us" are the English disjunctive versions: "it's me", it's us". "It" is the impersonal subject, "me" and "us" the complements.
A bit more on this: the disjunctive is where there is no further verb attached to "moi" or "me", etc. When there is another clause: eg "It is me who is wrong"/"It is I who am wrong"/ "It is me who am wrong" "It is me who is" - "is" here governed by "who" which in turn may refer to either "It" or "I/me". In French where the persons of verb, and their tenses, are much more clear: "It is we who were wrong" would certainly be "C'est nous qui nous sommes trompes", and "nous" here is disjunctive, as proved by "moi" if it were "c'est moi qui me suis trompe". Now that is an argument for saying that "It's me who am...". But it doesn't sound right, does it?

Anwulf makes a great virtue about the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the English language, which adds great richness to its variety, complexity and therefore difficulty, and allows each us a wide range of opportunities to express our own style, in a variety of ways. German compound verbs require that the prepositional prefix must be moved to the end of imperative clauses such as "Stehen Sie auf!". The Churchill anecdote mentioned above, which he made to illustrate the nonsense of the MP who had criticised his final prepositions, says all that.
But I disagree with Anwulf in his huffy derogatory comments on the incredibly important contribution made to English by Latin, not only in its vocabulary, but in its grammatical structure (not to mention its cultural importance, but that is another argument).
My own view is that for someone to be wholly educated in matters of the English language, the study of Latin and German when at school, to a reasonably advanced level, is invaluable.

It is, you are, who is, who are. "It is" singular because 'is' relates to the subject "it". It is you who are...: "you who are" is correct because 'are' relates to the subject "who" which is the subject of the relative clause "who are...", which in turn relates to its antecedent "you", so as the relative pronoun "who" derives its number from the antecedent, 'who are' replaces or represents "you are", just "It is I who am correct...".

"It is I" when answering a knock on the door or a call from a window is pedantic and would give the speaker's identity away immediately! The excuse for saying "It is me" or "It's me" is provided by the French, who look after their language with much more care than we do ours. "C'est moi", rather than "C'est je." The grammatical explanation is that
"moi" is used here disjunctively, as "ce" is the subject, so "je" is the complement rather than the subject. "Me" and "us" are the English disjunctive versions: "it's me", it's us". "It" is the impersonal subject, "me" and "us" the complements.

The yolk of eggs is not white. Nor are the yolks of eggs. Singular subject "is", plural subject "are", yolks yellow.