And I, and me

It’s I who do the cooking for you and then some!

This is acceptable. However, like pastsimple, I prefer

It's me who does the cooking.

"Since my early days of learning this language, I’ve always believed that one question may have several versions of answers which may be acceptable to some but deemed wrong by others since we learned from slightly different sources and interpreted the answer differently."

That's certainly true.

"In this particular discussion, the “incorrect” usage has been colloquially accepted and mistaken for being correct. Very seldom we hear people say “it’s I ….who….” anymore. It’s no big thing but I thought since we have this discussion, I’d like to point it out."

I'd say that since we usually hear and say "it's me ... who does" instead of "it's I... who do", the former is now "correct".

As for that website, as someone else here said, Fowler is not the best source for looking up rules of present day English.

If it is commonly used by native writers and speakers, that seems a good enough reason for calling it standard. Meaning is derived from consensus, after all.

However there is a difference between how native speakers use their language, and how some people think they should use their language. The American Heritage Dictionary says:


"Traditional grammar requires the nominative form of the pronoun in the predicate of the verb be: It is I (not me); That must be they (not them), and so forth. Nearly every speaker of Modern English finds this rule difficult to follow. Even if everyone could follow it, in informal contexts the nominative pronoun often sounds pedantic and even ridiculous, especially when the verb is contracted, as in It's we."


If nearly every speaker finds the rule difficult to follow, that tells me that something is wrong with the rule, not the speakers.

Then they go on to say:


"But constructions like It is me have been condemned in the classroom and in writing handbooks for so long that there seems little likelihood that they will ever be entirely acceptable in formal writing."


(I disagree with this, I think it is acceptable in formal writing, but) even if this was true, it says nothing about how native speakers speak their language. It only says "don't use it in formal writing because someone somewhere doesn't like it."

To put it another way: in order to be useful, rules should describe, not prescribe.

To put it another way: what good are rules if no one follows them?

I'm only suggesting that the rules of language that no one follows should be replaced with rules that reflect how people speak. I am not suggesting that this viewpoint be extended to any other field.

kitkattail
thank you very much for your wonderful reply aim a new user to this site...i don't know much about it.I think this  site will be helpfull for me to learn english.. if people like u will reply to me..
once again thank you .
maxwel