I don't disagree with you about usage, but your grammatical terminology is not accurate. The verb "to be" is not an action verb, but a linking verb, and linking verbs don't have objects.
Why do I say that? Because, in ordinary usage, the subject and the object are two different entities. When they are in fact the same entity, we have a special, intensified form of the pronoun to mark this. We can say "The Spanish Barber shaved Juan" or "The Spanish Barber shaved Antonio," and if we have previously talked about J or A, we can say, "The Spanish Barber shaved him"; but if the person the Spanish Barber shaved was the Spanish Barber, we must say, "The Spanish barber shaved himself." If we say "him," without antecedent, hearers will not normally infer that the Spanish Barber is both subject and object, but that someone else is the object, whom they have failed to hear mentioned, or whom the speaker has failed to identify. And that is because an action verb with two nouns attached normally describes one entity acting on another entity. The special form is even required in "I shaved myself"; we could just say, "I shaved," but "I shaved me" would be totally abnormal.
But we do not say, "It is myself," in ordinary speech. And that's because the verb is not a verb of one thing acting on another, of doing or making or having or suffering; it is a verb that equates to words to the same thing.
In traditional usage, both words would take the subject or nominative form. I agree that current English usage has assimilated "to be" and other linking verbs (at least partially) to action verbs, and that "It's me" is normal usage and "It's I" is archaic or hyperformal. (French is better off with c'est moi! which uses a special demonstrative form of the pronoun for that situation and only that situation.) But "me" still isn't the object; in this case, it's being used to represent the subject.
As to the primary linguistic question, you bring up a good example; I was puzzling over that usage myself. It does seem that in some cases both nouns can be pluralized. I wonder if it's a relic usage? It seems to me that a plural noun ending in -s would jump out at me as obviously wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-04-30 12:02 am (UTC)Why do I say that? Because, in ordinary usage, the subject and the object are two different entities. When they are in fact the same entity, we have a special, intensified form of the pronoun to mark this. We can say "The Spanish Barber shaved Juan" or "The Spanish Barber shaved Antonio," and if we have previously talked about J or A, we can say, "The Spanish Barber shaved him"; but if the person the Spanish Barber shaved was the Spanish Barber, we must say, "The Spanish barber shaved himself." If we say "him," without antecedent, hearers will not normally infer that the Spanish Barber is both subject and object, but that someone else is the object, whom they have failed to hear mentioned, or whom the speaker has failed to identify. And that is because an action verb with two nouns attached normally describes one entity acting on another entity. The special form is even required in "I shaved myself"; we could just say, "I shaved," but "I shaved me" would be totally abnormal.
But we do not say, "It is myself," in ordinary speech. And that's because the verb is not a verb of one thing acting on another, of doing or making or having or suffering; it is a verb that equates to words to the same thing.
In traditional usage, both words would take the subject or nominative form. I agree that current English usage has assimilated "to be" and other linking verbs (at least partially) to action verbs, and that "It's me" is normal usage and "It's I" is archaic or hyperformal. (French is better off with c'est moi! which uses a special demonstrative form of the pronoun for that situation and only that situation.) But "me" still isn't the object; in this case, it's being used to represent the subject.
As to the primary linguistic question, you bring up a good example; I was puzzling over that usage myself. It does seem that in some cases both nouns can be pluralized. I wonder if it's a relic usage? It seems to me that a plural noun ending in -s would jump out at me as obviously wrong.