In the predicate relation the pronouns respond to a more complex regulation. When they follow any form of the simple verb of being they take the objective form, as in "it's /me/," "it ain't /him/," and "I am /him/," probably because the transitiveness of this verb exerts a greater pull than its function as a mere copula, and perhaps, too, because the passive naturally tends to put the speaker in the place of the object. "I seen /he/" or "he kissed /she/" or "he struck /I/" would seem as ridiculous to an ignorant American as to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his instinct for simplicity and regularity naturally tends to make him reduce all similar expressions, or what seem to him to be similar expressions, to coincidence with the more seemly "I seen /him/." After all, the verb of being is fundamentally transitive, and, in some ways, the most transitive of all verbs, and so it is not illogical to bring its powers over the pronoun into accord with the powers exerted by the others. I incline to think that it is some such subconscious logic, and not the analogy of "it is /he/," as Sweet argues, that has brought "it is /me/" to conversational respectability, even among rather careful speakers of English.[67] But against this use of the objective form in the nominative [Pg223] position after the verb of being there also occurs in American a use of the nominative form in the objective position, as in "she gave it to mother and /I/" and "she took all of /we/ children." What lies at the bottom of it seems to be a feeling somewhat resembling that which causes the use of the objective form before the verb, but exactly contrary in its effects. That is to say, the nominative form is used when the pronoun is separated from its governing verb, whether by a noun, a noun-phrase or another pronoun, as in "she gave it to mother and /I/," "she took all of /we/ children" and "he paid her and /I/" respectively. But here usage is far from fixed, and one observes variations in both directions--that is, toward using the correct objective when the pronoun is detached from the verb, and toward using the nominative even when it directly follows the verb. "She gave it to mother and /me/," "she took all of /us/ children" and "he paid her and /me/" would probably sound quite as correct, to a Knight of Pythias, as the forms just given. And at the other end Charters and Lardner report such forms as "I want you to meet /he/ and /I/" and "it is going to cost me $6 a week for a room for /she/ and the baby." I have noticed, however, that, in the overwhelming main, the use of the nominative is confined to the pronoun of the first person, and particularly to its singular. Here again we have an example of the powerful way in which /I/ asserts itself. And superimposed upon that influence is a cause mentioned by Sweet in discussing "between you and /I/."[68] It is a sort of by-product of the pedagogical war upon "it