Grammar rules then and now.

Has much changed since 1979?

"Such common expressions as it’s me and was it them? are incorrect, because the verb to be cannot take the accusative: the correct expressions are it’s I and was it they? But general usage has led to their acceptance, and even to gentle ridicule of the correct version."

B. A. Phythian, A Concise Dictionary of Correct English (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979).

It seems to me that with regards to the above, the situation is rather the same.

On what basis can "It's me" be said to be wrong? Saying "because the verb 'to be' cannot take the accusative" is simply restating the premise. Phythiam seems to have a problem with both grammar and logic. "Me" is clearly the object of the verb "to be", and thus, as the objective pronoun, is the correct word. That basic rules of grammar should be ignored simply because people who claim to be experts in grammar say they should be ignored makes no sense. Some people call this "prescriptivism", but I find that labeling to be inaccurate, as this is a clear disregard for the formal rules of grammar.

As for how much has changed, this state of affairs, of a self-appointed class of "experts" promulgating absurd rules completely at odds with actual English and making derisive comments about people speaking correct English, existed long before 1979, and continues to exist.

<existed long before 1979, and continues to exist. >

But does anyone listen to them? Do they have an effect upon learning, on our social image, etc.?

What I don't get is why do people say things like "me" cannot be used with "to be" because "to be" doesn't take the accusative. Why doesn't it take the accusative? How come "it is me" is not allowed to be an example of the accusative? Why not just change "to be" into a normal transitive verb instead of inventing all kinds of other new definitions about obliquity and complementation etc...?

The matter with predicative verbs in English such as "to be" is that historically they did take the nominative case for their nominal complements (as they still do in German), but for a long time they have been moving steadily towards acting like normal transitive verbs when used with nominal complements - that is, taking the oblique case for their nominal complements. Note that this is not new by any means, as the use of the oblique case for nominal complements of predicative verbs is very well attested in the Early New English period. Over time, the use of the oblique case for such has all but completely eliminated the use of the nominative case for such in actual spoken English, but many prescriptivist types still insist that the only "correct" usage for such is the nominative case, despite such verging on being archaic in actual usage.

Jane and me went to the store.
Better than me.
Me likes.
Me loves it!

I can be replaced with ''me'' with no regrets whatsoever...
It shan't be missed ;)

<Me likes.
Me loves it! >

And why not this?

Me like.
Me love it!

No, it can't. In actual English dialects with no creolization or like involved at any point, single subjects still need to be in nominative case - it is only when you have multiple subjects in a coordinate construction that they may (and in speech generally are) in oblique case.

English has no true accusative case.

I presume you mean the objective or oblique.

Not much has changed. In the end, folks still sway the prescriptivist way.

>>"Me" is clearly the object of the verb "to be", and thus, as the objective pronoun, is the correct word.<<

It's not, because it is referring to the SAME thing as the subject.

Travis: "In actual English dialects with no creolization or like involved at any point, single subjects still need to be in nominative case - it is only when you have multiple subjects in a coordinate construction that they may (and in speech generally are) in oblique case."

Very true.

Those who heap scorn on constructions like "me and Frank went swimming" always try to "prove" that "me" is incorrect by arguing that if you take away "and Frank" you get 'me went swimming".

But no native English speaker (except perhaps a small child) would ever say "me went swimming". Even those who use "me and Frank went" default immediately back to "I went" if "and Frank" is removed.

Their dialect actually has a more complicated grammar "rule" for the use of "I/me" than so-called "Standard English" does.

<Their dialect actually has a more complicated grammar "rule" for the use of "I/me" than so-called "Standard English" does. >

I agree.

It actually gets a bit more complex than that, as in actual usage, while many people are likely to still use "Frank and I went swimming", when unprompted, the vast majority of English-speakers would use "me and my friend went swimming" rather than the prescribed "my friend and I went swimming", which actually sounds rather, well, awkward in practice despite what the standard specifies.