1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "Это он."

"Это он."

Translation:It is him.

November 4, 2015



People usually say this when I enter the room.


And then he gets arrested.


"It is him" is just bad English grammar. The correct way to say it is "It is he."


They accepted my "It is he."


I'd say 'It's him', some things sound very unnatural when they are put together like that.

Like we don't often say.. It is time in conversation, rather just, 'it's time.'

Conversely you don't always want to put it together. When you're saying what you are.. well that sentence there is a good example. You don't shorten the second you are.

'When you're saying what you're' is unnatural. As is 'When you are saying what you are' and even 'When you are saying what you're'

Whether you, I think it's conjugate, is very dependent on context. In the context of this sentence, yeah abbreviate to: It's him.


It's not the abbreviation that is the issue. "Him" is simply the wrong word.


Yes, although it's bad grammar, its what we say. I think we should call "him" an emphatic pronoun...like in French "lui" eg "c'est lui"


Exactly, as a French speaker, "It is him" sounds way more natural than "It is he". My original answer to that exercice was "It is." I didn't understand they were talking specifically about a person, so I chose the neutral way.


Your answer is absolutely incorrect. "It is" means "Это" and nothing more. It is (what/who) he.


Does French not have nominative and objective forms of pronouns? Now some people are corrupting English by using "they" instead of "he," but not I, because I recognize "they" as plural and not singular.


"They" has been used as a singular 3rd person pronoun for hundreds of years and attested as such. Language changes over time, it's naive to think there's such thing as "corrupting" a language.


That would be sub-standard English.


"It's him" and "It's he" are both correct English.


Why is it bad English, I think it's normal and that it is he sounds weird Xd


In English, when "to be" is used as the "copula," or "linking verb," to identify one noun as another, both nouns are in the nominative case. Typically, the noun to the left of the verb is the subject of the sentence, and the noun to the right is the object; e.g., in the sentence, "They eat those," "they" is the subject and "those" is the object, but in the case of the linking verb, both the subject and the "object" are in the nominative case: "those are they" rather than "those are them," "them are they" or "them are those."

An easy way to remember which is correct is to reverse the order of the nouns. Would you say "he is it" or would you say "him is it?" "It is he" reverses to "He is it;" whereas, "It is him" reverses to "Him is it." "It is him" is incorrect for the same reason that "Him is it" is incorrect: with the copula, or linking verb ("to be," in this case), the subject and what looks like an object should both be in the nominative case. Mutatis mutandis, since "he is it" is correct, "it is he" is also correct.

With other verbs, such as "action verbs" rather than "linking verbs," the object does appear in the objective rather than subjective (or "nominative") case: when the subject and object change places, "he eats it" would "reverse" to "it eats him" rather than "it eats he;" "he eats them" becomes "they eat him;" and so on.

In the case of "linking verbs," the subject IS the object; therefore, changing the position of subject and object does not change the identity. "It is he;" "he is it."


It is him is considered bad English by some because it violates standard grammar rules. Grammar requires it is he.

Others, including yourself apparently, think it is good English because it is what you call normal. Normal means something conforms to norms and the norm in English is based on grammar. It is him is the most common phrasing however which is probably what you were referring to.


it violates obscure grammar "rules".


Exactly. The o.p. wanted to know why it was it was considered bad English.

It violates the rules which constitute grammar but are very often ignored in everyday conversation.


but they're not really grammar rules. they're only style rules masquerading as grammar rules.


Technically you are correct. But in conversation 99% of Americans would say "him". I am not an expert on British English.


Unfortunately you are correct; however, those 99% are incorrect.


also him would be a different word


You are correct. This app needs instruction in remedial English grammar. One could also say "this is he".


who you calling remedial? maybe you could use some help with some remedial linguistics?


It depends on the context. For example,

"It is him!" The woman shouts, pointing at a man walking down the street, "The man who stole my purse!"


But I'm assuming that's a context where Roachster1 would use "he". Who stole it? It's he. He stole it. A better example would be something like "Whom did you pick? Him. I picked him." But that would call for different Russian. Either way, in English, it's becoming more and more acceptable to use object pronouns after forms of be. So "It's he" is prescriptively better, while "It's him" is descriptively better.



In the case of "I picked him," "picked" is an "action verb" rather than a "linking verb" or "copula;" that is why "him" in "I picked him" is in the objective case, whereas "he" in "it is he" is in the subjective or nominative case.


That is a great way to put it!


One would assume 'он' to be a masculine pronoun and use the corresponding masculine demonstrative pronoun 'этот'...but it's neuter and requires 'это'. Weird. Is there any logic to this?


There are actually two different это's (ack!). One is the unchanging это which means "this is" or "it is". The other is the changing это which means "this" and changes for number, gender and case. You are right that the neuter version of the changing это is the same as the unchanging это. To better explain how to use these different words and when, here is a link written by someone who understands it a lot better than I do: http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/eto-1.htm


It's just the equivalent of "this is a book" vs. "this book".

Это is a pronoun, этот/это/эта is a determiner.


You can all have a lingot! Thank you.


What do you mean? How can you give lingots?


You can't do it on the mobile version (Android).


If you look at the grey lettering under a post, right next to the "reply", it says "give lingot". Try clicking on that. it will ask you whether you really want to give a lingo to the poster of the comment. If you do, click yes.


J.C.Fink is correct but you should know that you can only give one lingot at a time. So if you want to give fifty lingots you have to click the entry fifty times to do so.

Annoying to say the least.


That's a good summary ! Thank you !


Thank you ! Great site. It gives us examples where we can see the subtleties of the language. I will ponder on it and hopefully the " это" will become like a second nature to me! :-)


Not sure if it got sped up on my system, but it sounded like "Этон." Slow down, it's really clear, but it sounds sped up at normal speed.


это он is probably pronounced like этон due to elision. if you eliminate that extra о it's a lot easier to say quickly. many languages elide like thus, i can't think of it happening in English other than with contractions...

  • 161

However, это он is not pronounced like этон. First you pronounce это and then он.


if it's not pronounced like that, then why does the robomaid say it like that? plus, try saying это он quickly without it sounding like этон.


I'm hearing something more like "eta one" here, like she's adding in a /w/ sound to make sure the two words are separated.



Он is nominative case. The direct translation should be it is he.


You should never translate word by word, it's the meaning you should get across and not "the form". different languages express things differently. and in English it is usually said: this is him.


I have never heard "this is him"! In English, the subject and the complement both take the nominative: "this is he" is both the correct, and the normally used form (in my part of the world, anyway).


Sad to relate, Friend Daughter of Albion, I am compelled to report that here in the New World, we Colonials continue in our unabated, headlong rush to corrupt and degrade the Mother Tongue. I seldom hear the use of the nominative form in sentences following the verb “to be.” Much more frequently I hear the objective form used (e.g., It’s him). There was a time when that would evoke in me a feeling similar to that caused by fingernails scratching a blackboard. So sad, but this prescriptivist, drowning in the sea of utterances of the unlettered, is becoming de-sensitized to “ungrammatical” English. I know, this “elitist” statement will no doubt result in reflexive shouts of outrage from the descriptivists hereabout, those who consider the most popular speech to be the correct usage, but I cannot hold my tongue. O tempora! O mores! Surely, entropy in action!


stanmann, I fear that you are correct. We of the old world must accept that our time is passing. We had our critics too, you know. Were Geoffrey Chaucer to reappear in our midst he would surely have a thing or two to say. But, nobody would understand him now!



But in the Russian part of the world the verb is isn't present in the sentence. Adding it is a common way for English speakers to satisfy their notion of logical word order in a sentence. There is no need to add additional grammar rules that have nothing to do with the original Russian.

That's him over there is a perfectly natural and common thing to say in my part of the world. As is this is him here, in the last row of the photograph.


Whether to be is present in Russian is irrelevant to the construction of the English translation, since it is impossible to omit it from the translation: we can say neither "This - he" nor "That - him". (Whether or not you use the option of contracting is to 's - which is possible after that but not after this - also makes no difference.)
When writing English, we follow the rules of English grammar, not those of Russian.
I respect your evidence that you commonly hear the phrases that you quote; is that also what you were taught to use when you were at school?


In reply to hud214: I would not ever say either "she and she" or "she and I" - nor have I ever heard anyone say either! As far as I am aware, "they" is the only possible plural here - there is no way of specifying that you are talking about two females in English via pronouns.
But yes, I would say "Anna and I went to the shops", not "Anna and me...".


Would you say "She and she went to the store."? I would say "She and her went to the store."


But if you use "him", DL will not know you realize that "он'' is nominative because you did not use an English nominative pronoun.


For the people that who speak dialects that say "It is him", though, were they to be corrected with "It is he" they would just be more confused and vent in the comments about how stupid Duolingo is et cetera.

Besides, there actually is a name for this phenomenon: disjunctive pronouns, different forms of pronouns you'd use in isolation or in certain circumstances. It's just one of many borrowings from French, where you would always and uncontroversially say « C'est moi » instead of « C'est je ». It's just that French has a different word for the disjunctive and object pronouns ( moi / me ), while English does not (me/me).



It is true that "c'est je" is not the standard way to say "it is I" in French; it is also true that in French, "moi" has several meanings, including "ego" (as in "the ego"), "I," and "me;" however, in Old French, "ce suis je" was indeed the standard way to say "it is I." How the "ce suis je" of Old French became the "c'est moi" of French today is a somewhat complicated history, but the "ce suis je" of Old French and the "c'est moi" of modern French both mean "it is I."

To use your terminology, in the French sentence, "c'est moi," "moi" is a "disjunctive pronoun" meaning "I" rather than an "object pronoun" meaning "me." In French, the disjunctive pronoun has several functions, but the pertinent function in this case is for emphasis or contrast. For example, "Lui, il aime jouer" means "(As for) him, he likes to play." In English, we do not generally use disjunctive pronouns this way; certainly, at least, English does not have a special set of pronouns used for contrast or emphasis, as languages such as French and Irish have; thus, in the French sentence, "lui" is a disjunctive pronominal form, but in the English translation, "him" appears to be the objective pronominal form following the preposition "for" in the phrase, "as for him" (and simply saying "him, he likes to play," is regarded as an ellipticism that implies the entire phrase, "as for him," for instance). English does not have a special set of "emphatic," "contrastive," or "disjunctive" pronouns; so, rendering such constructions in English is at least a little problematic.

However, more to the point, notice that in French, the disjunctive pronoun can express emphasis or contrast by itself, that is, in place of the standard pronominal form: contrast "lui n'est pas au courant de cela," and "il n'est pas au courant de cela;" both sentences mean "he is not aware of that," but the disjunctive form, "lui" emphasizes "he," whereas the standard form, "il," does not. In other contexts, "lui" can be an objective pronoun meaning "him" or "her" (e.g., "envoie-lui un paquet" means "send him a parcel" or "send her a parcel"), but in this sentence, "lui" is a disjunctive pronoun meaning and emphasizing "he:" it would be grammatically incorrect to translate "lui n'est pas au courant de cela" as "him is not aware of that" (or "her is not aware of that"); because, here, "lui" means "he" rather than "him" or "her." Mutatis mutandis, it is incorrect to translate "c'est moi" as "it is me;" because, here, "moi" means "I" rather than "me:" in "c'est moi," "moi" is a disjunctive pronoun meaning "I" rather than an objective pronoun meaning "me."

The "moi" of "c'est moi" is the modern, emphatic form of the pronoun "je" (in Old French, "ce suis je" was indeed the standard); that is, in "c'est moi," "moi" is the "disjunctive" equivalent of "I" rather than the objective equivalent of "me." There is no precise analog in English, because English does not have special pronouns for such purposes (in English, if you want to contrast or emphasize a pronoun, you just say that word louder, but not coincidentally, English routinely stresses certain syllables of words whereas French almost never does). "Disjunctive" means "disjoined," "unconnected," "not clearly related to," or "an alternative," especially an alternative exclusive to the standard. The emphatic form, "moi," is "disjunctive" in "c'est moi" for the very reason that it means "je," the equivalent of "I" in English, rather than the equivalent of "me" in English, as "moi" typically means, e.g., when used as an indirect object in a sentence such as "donne-moi le stylo" ("give me the pen"). If "moi" were really objective ("an object pronoun") in "c'est moi," then its use as such would not be "disjunctive" there, that is, "disjoined from" or "out of joint with" its typical, standard application of "me;" indeed, what makes "moi" disjunctive there is the fact that it means "I" ("je" in French, as in the Old French, "ce suis je") rather than "me."


What would the direct translation of "It is him." be?


Probably something like э́то его́, although do note that this would only be used in a circumstance that calls for the accusative (direct object) or genitive (possessive) case.
Whom did you hit? It's him. Это его.



It is he..... after the verb to be we do not use the pronoun him


In America we say "It is him" just like the French "C'est lui."


In American SOME of us say "It is him." Others of us say, "It is he."


If by "some" you mean "most".


By "some" I mean "a number of individuals", without specifying how large or small a percentage of the total English-speaking population of the United States I believe that to be.


No offense intended, Friend hud214, but not all Americans use the objective form (“him”) when the nominative (“he”) is clearly called for. Ignorance may be rampant, but “correctness” is not determined by plebiscite (though the “descriptivists”among us will disagree). Yes, either form will certainly be understood by all English speakers, but be advised that in certain strata (e.g., formal and academic), adverse inferences about the speaker will likely be drawn by such usage. Yes, I know that most will agree with you, but for this old fart–sorry, make that “geriatric windbag”–some old rules are worth preserving.


The fact is in America we do say "It's him." The nominative form isn't clearly called for least why would the French use the objective form. I'm sure we can all agree that the French are the most cultured of 'em all. True sophisticates! The adverse inferences of saying "It is he." is sounding too much like Martin Prince and running the risk of getting a punch in the arm. I wouldn't recommend it, if you're in gymclass. Of course if you're a Harvard English professor, you might want to go with "It is he." In any event I find it in terribly bad taste to tell somebody else how to talk. You talk however you like! No offense intended.


Generally speaking, taking a language learning course is all about being told how to talk.


Touché! Of course we're all here to learn Russian. I was referring to rather the more unsolicited variety of advice on grammar. Don't need nobody thinking they can tell me how to speak English! And neither do you, unless of course you do.


No offense taken, Friend hud214, but I take a comparison to a ten year old with a 216 IQ to be a compliment-- regardless of how it was intended. And though I like the French a lot, I’m not ready to concede the supremacy of their “sophistication,” a word that is about as vague as any I can think of. It may be that my eyesight is failing, but I fail to see why how the French speak is in any way relevant to the subject at hand. And I agree with you, I think I would taste terrible, even liberally seasoned. [(:< )] And yes, to date at least, everyone here (though not everywhere) can speak as he/she wants. Some of us try to speak English as we were taught in school. And you may speak as you wish. Bonne chance, mon ami (Correct or not, that about exhausts my knowledge of French).


Some old rules are indeed worth preserving, like the disjunctive nature of English pronouns. Every amateur grammarian laments their recent introduction when they're been around since at least Priestley & Lowth's campaign to eradicate 'em. For the uninitiated that was 250 years ago. I can only reasonably assume they came over with the Normans. As everybody knows, or might know, Modern English has its foundations in Old Anglo-Saxon, Norse and French with French holding the prestige position. Finally you and me can agree. Preserve the old ways! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun


The fact is not EVERYONE in America says, "It's him." Many do, I grant you. But I live in America, and I do not say, "It's him." And I know some others who do not either.. So you can say, "Many people in America say, 'it's him,' and be factually correct. However the blanket statement, "in America we do say 'It's him' ignores the exceptions, of whom I am one; it is only partially accurate at best.


Partially accurate at worst. Take the show "This is us." not "This is we." Why do you think that is? Maybe because TV studios want shows with mass appeal.


"This Is Us" may be elliptical for "This Is (the Story of) Us."

If "to be" is really equating "this" with "we," wouldn't the title be "These Are We" rather than "This Is We?"

Because the title uses the singular "this" rather than the plural "these," and the objective "us" rather than the subjective "we," interpreting the title as elliptical for "This Is the Story of Us" makes more sense.


"This is we." would be a series on Masterpiece Theater. Sounds interesting too. I'd watch it!


The comparison with French is disanalogous, incorrect, misleading, and historically inaccurate: what you are calling "the objective form" is not really an objective form; rather, those pronouns (such as "moi," for example) were emphatic or contrastive forms in Old French, yet survive today as standard in contemporary, Modern French.

More to the point, as for "least why would the French use ...," French and English are distinct languages; the rules of French grammar and English grammar are different. Perhaps not in this case (again, what you are calling "the objective form" really is not, for historical reasons that even many native French speakers are unaware of), but the point is, there is no reason whatsoever to think that English grammar should follow the rules of French grammar: English has its own grammar.


The FACT actually is that in America SOME of us - apparently including you - do say, "It's him." and in America SOME of us - I am a living example; so is stanmann - do say, "It is he."


>So you concede that we do say "It is him." in America?

I understood the disagreement to be over not whether anyone in America ever says, "It's him" - obviously some do - but over whether anyone in America says, "It is he." I know from personal experience that some do. I also understood the argument to be about whether "It's him," was a BETTER, more grammatically correct form than "It is he", that you were arguing that "It is he," was a grammatical blunder, a flat-out wrong form. Perhaps we misunderstood each other.


you mistook my cry of cultural pride and use of the pronoun "we" for the authoritative tone of a grammarian. very understandable.


So you concede that we do say "It is him." in America? I might say we play baseball in America. Doesn't mean everybody plays baseball. Doesn't mean there isn't an American "Anti Baseball League". It just means that baseball is played in America. It might imply all manner of things. You're on your own on your inferences, but "It is him." is said in America.


If "It (or this) is him" is aceptable here -- and presumably "it (or this) is her -- then why was I marked wrong for translating она и он as "her and him"?


Well, "она и он" evidently uses Russian nominative pronouns, so DL wants you to use English nominative (not disjunctive) pronouns - "she and he" to show you realize those Russian pronouns are nominative.


can ''it is he'' instead of ''it's him'' be accepted or does it have to be ''it's him''


Of COURSE you can say "It is he," and if you do, DL will realize that you know the Russian pronoun он is nominative.


As a rule an American would say "It's him." Rarely you might hear "It is he." I have a feeling it might be more common in the U.K.


I wrote 'it is he'


Это он, Это он, Ленинградский почтальон


Does 'Here he is' work too?


Based on the "it is him" answer you'd have to say "Here him is". I know, my horns are showing.


Object (or, I guess, disjunctive) pronouns are usually only used after copulae, not before.

Who is it? - It's him.
Where is he? - Here he is.
Where is he? - Here's him.

This doesn't happen in question form because of the inverted word order. For instance, most speakers I know wouldn't say "Where are them?", but rather "Where are they?".

There actually is a logic to the madness, despite what some prescriptivists think. If you want, you can take a look at this Wikipedia article that sums it up.

Yes, I know that English is not French, but nor is it German. English is more like a Germanic language with heaps of French influence thrown on top.



Or rather, why doesn't it work here?


Please note the translation was "It is him." not "It is he.".


"It is him" is not proper English.


oh? when you point to a friend in a picture do you say "that's he!"? when asked who made this mess do you say "he!". no, no, i say! "that's him!" and "him!" are the proper responses. but you talk how you see fit.


You may feel good speaking that way, but you are in fact making the English language more complicated by introducing exceptions to the grammar rules. Would you like to argue that English isn't complicated enough? Why are you so passionate about your position? Is this how you were taught in school?


I get what you're saying, but it's misleading a bit to call it an exception; it is indeed proper English. It's called a 'disjunctive pronoun' and we got it from French. 'It is me' and 'It is I' are both equally valid, but I don't know anyone who says the latter.


How do you do? You have just met someone (in this discussion forum) who says "It is I". And when someone asks for me by name on the phone, I invariably say, "This is she."So now you know at least one native English speaker who says the latter.


You've put a name to the pain. Nice work! Disjunctive pronouns, huh? Let me tell you they hate 'em 'round these parts. Grammar renders the most tolerant among us irrational! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun


In English the verb 'to be' takes a complement, not an object. In other words it is not followed by an accusative case such as 'him.' Not that anyone cares much these days.


Occasionally in the U.S. you'll hear somebody answer the phone "This is she." I believe in the U.K. it's more common, particularly among the posh set. I heard June Brown on "Who do you think you are?" referring to one of her antecedents by way of "This is he." Mind you she has my full support if she cares to talk that way.


that's just it. in english "be" takes an object pronoun. unlike most other european languages.


speak however you like. i'm not putting you down.


Not confused, proper English is: it is he! Nominative case


Proper English is also: it is him! Disjunctive pronoun


Let me ask you this. Do you point at yourself and said "Me" or "I" or something else? In English mind you! No correct answer. Academic curiosity.


Incorrect grammatically.... should say it is HE


Это он it is he


It is him = Это ЕГО Not "Это ОН'


It is he. It is she. It is I. It is they. It is who? It is we. Nominative pronouns, not objective.


You're correct, however it is a common English myth that you must use two subjects with "to be."

Typically, you will find two subjects used in formal writing and speech and a subject and an object used in informal speech as objective pronouns are typically associated with pointing at people or directing a verb at someone.


No, it's not a myth. It's grammar.


Is it different than "There he is" form?

  • 161

Of course.


Why isnt "here he is" correct?


"Here he is." and "This is him." pretty much mean the same thing in English. Duolingo is rather literal sometimes though.

  • 161

On the other hand, "Here Bob is" is a rather odd way to answer the question "Who the hell is it?"


Who is he? Slanderman? Spiderman?


It sounds like "Этон" due to the speed of the pronunciation. I find myself using the turtle/slow down button almost every time so I can hear and understand.

Когда it speaks fast, Я немного понимаю


shouldn’t “this is it” be accepted ?


I think that that would be э́то оно́. In languages that don't have a neuter gender, "it" is usually expressed by the pronouns for "he" or "she", but Russian does have one.

он - masculine / he
она́ - feminine / she
оно́ - neuter / it
они́ - plural / they

You'll find this kind of pattern a lot in Russian. Masculine nouns usually end in a consonant, feminine in а or я, neuter in о or е and plural in и.

стул (stul) - m
соба́ка (sobáka) - f
со́лнце (sólnce) - n
де́ти (déti) - pl

Those are the words for chair, dog, sun and children. This is far from a foolproof rule, though; the plural for стул, for example, is сту́лья (stúl'ja), not сту́ли (stúli), because стул is a loanword from German. Even then, there are still multiple other patterns; it just seems like this one is the most prevalent.



It's dat boi! Here he comes!


Looks again like a bug, since I exactly type 'It is him.'.


Does 'it is him' make sense


Sure does. Some people deny the disjunctive nature of the English pronoun. Take the name of the tv show "This is us." Wikipedia lists five other shows and albums named "This is us." Wikipedia doesn't list anything named "This is we." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Us


Yes. For informal American English, it's preferable to "it is he".


Почему "Это он" пееводится как "it's him", должно же быть как "it's hi"?


You mean "It's he."? You wouldn't say "It's he." in America unless you're the college professor type.


Could work also in interrogative form: это он? (Is it him?)?


I think it sounds more like это дом


Would "It's the dude!" be appropriate?


"It's the dude" would be «Это чувак»


Is 'Here he is' wrong?


But why "он" is translated as "him"? I think "him" is equal "его", isn't it?


That is because .... it is he..... is grammatically correct English but violates common English conversation protocols. Had Duo required that OH be translated as he, there would be pages of objections from English speakers. It was just easier to go with the flow of normal English conversation.


Many speakers of English would regularly say "It is him" no matter what case "him" is in; this is called the disjunctive, and it comes from French, where you would always say « C'est lui » instead of « C'est il ». "It is him" could be either "Это он" or "Это его".



I can never hear the first or last word


Hey this is just the devil playing with us who agrees


Doesn't Russian have an accusative like "he > him"?


seniorhitler: It does. The nominative form is “он”, and the accusative (objective) form is “его”. And no offense intended, Friend, but I’ll bet that moniker does make an impression on folks!!!


Would this be appropriate to say on the phone when someone asks for you by name. eg Caller: "Could I speak with Mike?" Mike:"This is he"


I think we would say, 'Here he is,' or 'There he is,' except when asked by a policeman or headteacher in which case it would be 'It's him wot done it,' or ' he did it.' 'It is He,' might be said by a lawyer or clergyman.


it is not explained at any point the difference between ето ,это and этот


Why is это used as it, not this ?


So, Iʼll be the first to admit that I was one of those people in this forum declaring with absolute certainty that the verb “to be” requires two subjects, unlike regular English verbs. I am no longer one of those people, and Iʼd like to explain why both “to be” with two subjects and “to be” with one subject and one object are both correct.

Essentially, people have been trying to make parallels between English and Latin because people believe that a decent amount of English came from Latin; this belief is incorrect. In fact, English used to be written in the fuþorc (“futhorc” using modern English alphabet) alphabet, which is an Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet; English didnʼt even start using Latin alphabet characters until later. (If youʼre wondering why English spelling is weird in a lot of cases, itʼs because English was forced into the Latin alphabet, where certain sounds had to be replicated using combinations of Latin characters where Latin characters did not exist to express said sounds, but you can look that up.)

The main thing to be said is that English is not Latin, meaning you canʼt just claim that because a rule exists in one language, it, therefore, must necessarily exist in another language. Therefore, both “it is he” and “it is him” should be accepted, as “to be” is an intransitive, linking verb.

I came to realize, at least for me, that English objects are associated much more with the idea of pointing to someone, as in if someone were to ask something like, “who is the criminal”, a person responding would most likely point to someone and say either, ”he is the criminal” or, “him”. This is a bit strange, as the ellipsis for “he is the criminal” should be the shortened version, “he”, as it is implied by the question that whoever gets called out is the criminal.

The reason I brought this up is because the convention is to use two subjects with “to be” in formal writing and a subject and an object with “to be” in informal writing, and I think that thatʼs because of most peopleʼs instinctive reactions to use objects when referencing or pointing to people in speech.

In addition, I also realized that “he is he“ and “he is him“ actually seem to have different meanings, where the first is suggesting that the subject of the sentence is himself, whereas the second stating that the subject is now being equated with some previously-known “him”: “heʼs that actor weʼve seen a thousand times!” ”Oh! heʼs him!”

I apologize for the long and rambling post, but the short answer is that both are correct and people here shouldnʼt be trying to stop other people from saying whichever version they want to say as both are correct. Speak whichever way you like!


I have movies on my smart t.v. set to show Russian subtitles where possible. Last night while watching an English language movie, it is him was rendered as Зто он.


He said Это, I cant hear the word Он!


Why isn't it этот? Isn't him masculine?


Iam getting problem to speak Russian i couldn't speak that how Russian speak it difficult to pronounce


Can you also say "This is him."?


Who says "This is he"?


I do, for one.


Using two subjects with “to be” is something that is supposed to be done in formal writing, but not really in informal writing or in speech, so thatʼs why you donʼt really hear people saying it, but it is perfectly fine in English.

You might hear it said if someone is giving a formal presentation or reading a paper out loud or in some other formal context where what is being spoken has been previously written down.


as a rule the grammatically uptight. to the grammatically uptight out there: there ain't nothing wrong with that! live like you gotta live, ain't nobody putting you down!


The problem with "grammatically uptight" things, though, is that grammar is usually more of a system of debates and language analysis, not one rulebook that a niche people decides to follow. I doubt the "grammatically uptight" need moral support, as nobody is slandering them; debate is not an attempt at insult, just debate.



Some people, apparently. Like with "whom", I assume it's dying.


I did "It is boy." What?

Learn Russian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.