I see. Thanks for clearing my doubt, guys.

I agree it sounds rediculous and grates on the ear, but it's correct. Though you'd probably say "It is I" rather than shorten it.

An example? Answer: - the "who shot the sheriff" is implied.
Saying would therefore read as In this instance you might get off as Bob Marley and Eric Clapton are obvious suspects as well.

Play Bonny!

I can't vouch for Scots, but it is not correct in English. In any language, "correct" means what is accepted by educated speakers.

The objection to "It's me" is that "me" is here an accusative form being used as a subjective complement, which should be nominative. But that depends on defining "me" as an accusative, and the only evidence we have for a definition is usage, which includes "It's me" and "Who, me?" The OED records this usage of "me" as "now colloquial", but as standard from the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century. Thus "It is I" is a Middle English form revived by people who thought it was "correct", probably because they were thinking in terms of Latin.

This is a bit of-topic, but the linguist in me cannot be denied!

From The faraway tree:

"He is going to stay quite a long time"

- why is for missing here?
- will it be wrong if I use for there? Why?

I suppose stay for is more correct, but missing out for is acceptable.

Do you know of any book which clarifies what is acceptable
and what's not?

If I don't know the rules how would I know whether what I
am speaking is correct or not?

No.
What you're saying doesn't have to be strictly correct. Conversational English has looser rules than some written English.

When can 'the' be used before a name?


"And, Dick, all kinds of queer folk live in the trunk of the Faraway Tree," said Jo."


The is not capital here, which means it is not the part of the name? Why is the used here?

I am talking about the in front of faraway tree. That is the name of the tree, isn't it?

So, can I say - chocolates are for the kuki. Here kuki is the name of the child.

Is there an order in which the figures of speech should be learned?

https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/

I am new to english grammar. So, should I learn those figures of speech in a particular order or any random order would do?

The definite article is used to indicate that you are referring to a specific thing which the listener can identify:
"the police officer" - the one we were talking about
"the prime minister" - of our own country
"the screwdriver" - the only one in sight
"the Faraway Tree" - the tree to which we have given a name.

Proper names are capitalised, but for some reason, never the article, when present:
"the Indian Ocean"
"the World Bank"
"the Faraway Tree"

You didn't talk about my last sentence in that post. Please do.

I'd go through that site in the order in which they list the topics, since they look as if they've worked it out carefully.

Incidentally, nouns and verbs are parts of speech. Figures of speech are the various "airs and graces" like
antithesis: "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"
anaphora (repetition at the start of successive elements): "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and the streets, we shall fight in the hills."

No. Only for kuki, or for Brian. For the child would be correct.

So can I say - have you been to the Paras hospital?
Paras is the name of the hospital.

Or should I say - have you been to Paras hospital?

Yes, you can, although you may need a capital H. To give some examples local to me, "the Hammersmith Hospital" is the name of an actual hospital, but I could ask "Do you go to the Kensington or the Fulham hospital?", meaning "St Mary's or the Charing Cross Hospital".