Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:16:16 
<h572gm$f91$2@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk> uk.net.news.config 
Roger Thorpe 

>Wm... wrote:
>> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:01:40  
>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>> These are two totally separate issues.
>>  Quack, quack, oink, bang.
>>
>That's easy for you to say.
>
>Roger Thorpe
>
>...Wait a minute, It's stopped raining/
>Guys are swimming, guys are sailing.....

USD10, sigh, wouldn't it be nice if people were that cheap now.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
I *know* someone is likely to take that the wrong way

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:03:22 +0100
Molly Mockford  wrote:

> Wm... is correct.  The verb "to be" takes the nominative.
> 
Apparently it's been disputed since the 18th century, with Priestley[1]
coming out in favour of the "wrong" form that I also prefer.  I think
I'll stick with putting subject complements in the accusative, but be
slower to complain when others don't.  :-)


[1]  I couldn't find it in Fowler, but I expect I just didn't look hard
enough.