Martin, I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. Sometimes being too correct all the time comes across as a bit humourous to the average Joe. If you're familiar with Hyacinth in Keeping Up Appearances, you'll remember that we always get a laugh from her desperate attempts to correct poor Richard.
Your reply sounded natural and friendly, not to mention humble.

Or, you could have typed,

Am I that genius? or

Am I the genius?

Even better, you could have replied .....

Was there ever any doubt?

;-)

I'm in agreement with froniga, considering the casual nature of your correspondence in this situation; however, since you asked:

I would use I and a little rephrasing instead-"Am I the genius?" color=red> or "Are you saying I'm the genius...or my solution?"color=red> Or there's the simple "Who you callin' a genius?"color=purple>
But I doubt your correspondent is the least bit worried about it, since you apparently offered an overwhelmingly super solution!
Meanwhile, I'm supposed to be doing yard work-so thanks for the excuse to delay the weed hunt.

Martin, am I correct in assuming that you are not worried about the impression you made on your IM partner, but that you just want to know, for the principle of it?

'cause it does sound a bit off, although I can't quite place my mental finger on the actual point of grammar. The that bothers me. Is it I who is the genius? may be the correctest* answer, but sounds rather haughty.

*deliberate

Indeed, Anyanka - I'm only concerned on principle. I strongly suspect that it wouldn't even have crossed my correspondent's mind.

I know I could have rephrased, and got round the problem. I think what gets me is I suspect it's not quite right, but I can't say why it's not right. As Anyanka says - maybe it's the "that"...? And yet...

Oh, what the heck. It's really not that important - or important at all, really.

IMO, it would be correct to say Is it I who is a genius?. Correct, but stilted, and therefore poorly suited to the friendly, cheerful nature of the email. The way you said it was perfectly fine for IM. Any of the many of the alternate suggestions offered would also be both correct and appropriate. Sometimes being very correct comes across as being stiff and fussy.

Rosefolly

Martin,

We did grammar based on the Latin at my grammar school till we dropped! Ad infinitum, you might say.

So: what you have here, is that the verb 'to be' takes a complement, not an object; ie, the apparent object (me) is not in the accusative case but in the nominative - so not 'me', but 'I'. Hence, 'It is I' is actually grammatically correct, not 'It is me'. But the former sounds ridiculous. So carry on saying what you said because, grammatically correct, a la Latin, or not, it sounds right.

Dido

The problem is the difference between conversational English and written English "instant messaging" being a 'whatever' mix of the two. "Is that me what is the genius?" would leave no doubt about the answer but it would be funny in conversation, wouldn't it.

On the subject of correct grammar, Veer mention on another thread that to call a woman 'common' was very demeaning but I remember an even worse condemnation 'no better than she should be' implying loose morals. It always sounded wrong and I once asked "should be what?" I was told "better" which made no sense either.
Any thoughts about this one?

"No better than she should be" puzzled me when I first read it as well. To my understanding, it implies that a person's bad behavior is to be expected based on her background or class origins. I've usually encountered the phrase in 19th or early 20th c. fiction where snobbery and social Darwinism were used to justify the class system. I can't recall any specific text at the moment -- perhaps in The Forsythe Saga?

When you are trying to determine the proper grammar in a question, it's always easier to turn it into a statement. So it would read "That is I who is a genius." Then you know it should be "Is that I who is a genius." Very stuffy, but grammatically correct.

Juliana is right-"no better than she should be" implies a lack of moral correctness but also a lack of "breeding" or "raising"-inferring she doesn't know any better or doesn't have the moral fiber to feel shame. In Lit, it is often the attractive but "lowborn" girl from the village out to better herself through the capture of the "son of the manor"...and the village matrons who watch and judge her.

Laceyveil,

It all refers back to the Latin and its cases, right or wrong to transfer to another language (as they did in the 18th century and on)! Remember?
Nominative
Vocative
Accusative
Genitive
Dative
Ablative

That's 'Proper grammar'.

Sorry for straying from the thread, but I do wonder what the phrase "too smart by half" means? Is that a back handed compliment, or an assessment that can be taken in either a negative or positive way?

I've always thought it meant precocious and smart-mouthed with it.

>I've always thought it meant precocious and smart-mouthed with it.Ouch! Obviously not a back-handed compliment, then! Thanks for your help.

dido, yes, of course, but also, the verb to be isn't transitive, that is doesn't take an object, so any pronoun that follows should be nominative, not accusative.

See my earlier posting, laceyvail - that's what I said.

too smart by half always carries the implication that the person is a smart smart-aleck to me

yup-that's what I said.