You are right and the native speaker is wrong. But you will hear the construction with "I" very often in the UK; many people are convinced that saying "my aunt and me" is wrong in all contexts, not just in subject position.

My grandmother had invited my aunt and me for coffee is correct, because, as you rightly point out, "She invited I" is dead wrong.

Your friend has learnt the rule according to which "My aunt and me invited my grandmother" is wrong, but has not understood it properly. "She invited my aunt and I" is a common solecism.

The trick I was taught is that if you would only talk about yourself and would use "I", then you use "I" - so, "my aunt and I went to my grandmother", as you wouldn't say "Me went to my grandmother". But - "my grandmother would invite me" - and not "my grandmother would invite I". Works every time.
Just in case a native wants to correct you again :-)

Edith sagt too slow! :-)

In English, the word order tells us whether a word is a subject or an object, so we don't really need to use different words for "I" and "me". As the difference is not relevant today, people have lost their feeling for which pronoun should be in which position, especially when there are two people involved like this.

Although I'm not a native English speaker, I will brazenly contribute to this thread anyway by stating that I hear this sort of thing all the time: on the radio, on television, from politicians, you name it. And of course from a lot of "regular" folk. It irks the crap out of me, but I feel that, unfortunately, people like myself, most LEOs and other supporters of the use of proper English are fighting a losing battle.

I'll echo all those comments, especially dude's irks the crap out of me!

Never trust a native speaker then?

the same could be said for German speakers, Restitutus.

Thanks for all your answers!
(I seem to have hit a hot issue... ;-)

Yes, there are similar things in German... (Fallfehler...)

Philipp

I have to say that I'm not that bothered by people 'breaking the rules' of language in this particular way. Maybe as I grew up with it then moved away from the area, so now look back on that kind of language fondly? Though I do notice it when listening to the radio etc. (all the time, as dude says), so I suppose it is a bit distracting.

The only time I groan inwardly is when historical characters or characters who would know better have these errors placed in their mouth by scriptwriters.

@ CM2DD:"In English, the word order tells us whether a word is a subject or an object"
Insufficient understanding of grammar. It also depends on the verb. If the verb can be replaced by an equal sign as with the verb to be, to remain etc., where is no object, since the second part is as much the nominative, the subject as the first part, so an inversion is completely correct.
"My mother tongue is German" == "German is my mother tongue"
"I am called an arrogant German dogmatic, who wants to tell English native speakers how to speak English correctly." == "An arrogant German dogmatic, who wants to tell English native speakers how to speak English correctly, am I called."
"Never ever will a German native speaker become a translator for English as the target language" == "Never ever a translator for English as the target language will become a German native speaker!" (You could replace this verbs by an equal sign, i .e: "German == my mother tongue"; "German native speaker != English translator)

Since the majority of English native speakers ignore this rule, they consider "It's me" as correct. My ultimate competence in English language, I trust the most, is the Oxford Dictionary (I only got the edition of 1995, I admit), that says: "ME pron. first: objective case of I (he saw me)"... third: colloq. used in exclamations (ah me! dear me! silly me!) ... [Old English me ... accusative & dative of I from Germanic]", Thompson, Della [ed.]: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ninth edition Oxford 1995, p.
843. So, this source still resists to the majority usage, so "It's me" is incorrect according to the Oxford Dictionary (I would go for "I am it"; the inversion "It is I" or even perhaps "'It' am I" sounds terribly, but grammarly correctly [Note that English was longly under French influence, whose usage "C'est moi" is considered as the emphatic only correct form by le Petit Robert]).

Dragonisseur
With respect, to judge by your English, I do not think you are in a position to comment. But as few will understand you, I'm not too worried that you will corrupt the young who consult this forum.

What irks me about the sort of thing pointed out in the OP is that it is hypercorrection, people showing off their knowledge or gentility and getting it wrong. Like Dame Edna's 'Excuse I!' And these are people who have the cheek to say that 'Him and me went shopping' is wrong (which it isn't, as I've pointed out more than once).

Insufficient understanding of grammar.
Shame the rest of your comment was not as clearly - bluntly - phrased as this first sentence. Note that I was not talking about the sentence 'It's me', but about sentences such as that in #0.

sounds terribly, but grammarly correctly
Pot, kettle.

@philippp, in spite of the protestations of purists and traditionalists (and of most contributors to Leo), most native speakers of AE would say "my grandmother had invited my aunt and I."

You can regret this, or lament it, or let it irk the crap out of you, or you can just accept it; --grammar school be damned, that is the way we talk.

But, as we have also established many times, not most native speakers who are educated and well-read. That demographic, for anyone who wants to be part of it, would say 'invited my aunt and me,' and also 'It's me,' but not '*Him and me went shopping.'

@11, 12, 13:
Unverständlich er schreibt, der junge Dragoniseur. Grammatikalisch fehlerhaft es auch ist. Ignorieren man es sollte.

(Schön, dass letzte Woche wieder einmal "Das Imperium schlägt zurück" im Fernsehen lief, Meister Yoda finde ich ganz wunderbar!)

Unverständlich er schreibt, der junge Dragoniseur.
"My ultimate competence in English language, I trust the most, is the Oxford Dictionary" - was das wohl heißt?

@igm: Und wenn wir den Satz entschlüsselt haben, widmen wir uns
If the verb can be replaced by an equal sign as with the verb to be, to remain etc., where is no object, since the second part is as much the nominative, the subject as the first part, so an inversion is completely correct.

And these are people who have the cheek to say that 'Him and me went shopping' is wrong (which it isn't, as I've pointed out more than once).

Escoville, ist dann "He and I went shopping" falsch? Zumindest nach Veros Regel (und auch nach meinem Gefühl) wäre es ja richtig.

Lady Grey

No, it's not wrong. But where I was brung up, 'him and me' was usual. I note with interest that that even my well-bred daughter talks like this, and if you search the forum, you'll find my adumbrations on the subject, possibly ad nauseam. in brief, it's a question of nominative/oblique (which will give you one answer) and conjunctive/disjunctive (which will give you the other). Both are widespread, and IMO, both are correct (though not stylistically equivalent, of course).

if you search the forum, you'll find my adumbrations on the subject, possibly ad nauseam
Ah, nein, das hatte ich noch nicht mitbekommen. Interessant. Aber schön, dass beide gehen. :-)

Und mit "brung" bringst Du gleich den Punkt heim, oder? ;o)

re #21: That is, both are okay if you don't care whether you sound educated/intelligent. (As I have also mentioned several times, sorry.) escoville and Martin--cal probably sound normal enough in the rest of their English that people would just dismiss something like that as a personal quirk or a minor slip-up, but learners shouldn't imitate them, and they shouldn't confuse learners.

hm -- us - welche Variante ziehst Du vor? Ich habe Escoville kennengelernt, und wäre zufrieden, wenn ich auch nur halb so intelligent/gebildet rüberkommen würde wie er. ;-)

#20 both are correct (though not stylistically equivalent, of course).

That stylistic difference results not least from the fact that one is generally considered "correct" and the other ain't ... :-)

if you search the forum, you'll find my adumbrations on the subject, possibly ad nauseam (Lady Grey)

That's almost a case for the "Kuriose Wörter" thread.

How disappointing - I thought #11 was intended as a parody.

On the question of me/him etc. as subjects, I also am sticking with what I grew with, so I would never say "me and him are ...."

If it is nevertheless perfectly acceptable English, I don't understand why I only used to hear it from speakers of non-standard English (I honestly don't think I'm imagining that), but now I hear it from all quarters.

[edit] I'd be happy to read escoville's adumbrations, but I can't find them.

I would never say "me and him are ...." " Das würde Escoville sicher auch nicht, Manieren hat er doch! (Der Esel nennt sich selbst zuerst)

@28

Precisely. It's 'Him and me...'

My adumbrations? Most recently about a year ago:
related discussion: Angela und sie

(where, incidentally, you'll find a transformational-grammar explanation of why 'invited my aunt and I' is not correct).

Since then, incidentally, I've heard John Humphrys say it on the Today programme. I believe it's far more common than people think. However when my daughter (and business partner) writes it, I give her a rap over the knuckles.

Or as the divine JB would have put it

Je t'aime... je non plus

... or maybe not.

duh, never mind!

@28: If you're going to use object pronouns as subjects, I don't think I'm going to care much whether you're polite about it. ;-)

@39: I give her a rap over the knuckles.
Thank XXX for that!

I obviously (or perhaps not so obviously) wouldn't correct someone I was having a conversation with unless s/he were a dependent of mine!

Thank you for the link.

@Lady Grey: See #15. I assume captain flint, SD3, and others will agree.

#33

 If you're going to use object pronouns as subjects

Sorry to labour the point, but you still don't get it, do you? These aren't just 'object' pronouns, they're 'disjunctive' pronouns, as is apparent from a number of contexts (...bigger than me, like me, it's me, me too etc.)

#35 So how about a theory that 'I' is replacing 'me' as a disjunctive pronoun in a coordination with another noun/pronoun?

So how about a theory that 'I' is replacing 'me' as a disjunctive pronoun in a coordination with another noun/pronoun?

That seems to be exactly the way things are moving.
Madame Grise et moi, nous allons aux Champs-Elysées.

Mais oui, avec plaisir Monsieur, allons-nous pour une tasse de thé!

#35:

1) If you're going to use object pronouns as subjects (my response to Lady Grey)

2) Sorry to labour the point, but you still don't get it, do you? (your presumably rhetorical question to me)

Re. 1: My reply to Lady Grey was intended as a humorous quip. Apparently, I failed to convey that despite the smiley.

Re. 2: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your point to be: Because the object pronouns we are discussing are disjunctive, they should not be seen as wrong. Is that correct?

If it is, and if we are discussing standard English as opposed to dialects, I don’t agree with that point of view. (But I can see that we may have different definitions of “wrong.”)

My position is that disjunctive pronouns used as subject complements or in elliptical constructions are part of today’s standard English, but that a disjunctive pronoun used in coordination with a noun or other pronoun(s) in the subject position is not (or not yet), even though this use of disjunctive pronouns may be typical of some dialects. Therefore, I do not flinch at “It’s him,” or “escoville has better manners than me,” but I would groan inwardly with dismay at “Lady Grey and me purchased tickets for the Met,” unless, of course, the information was provided by a dialect speaker, in which case I wouldn’t bat an eye.

A facebook friend of mine, a thoroughly respectable American lady of a certain age who teaches English at a Scandinavian university, and would probably think of the term 'blue-stocking' as a compliment, has just posted the following remark (on facebook), and not, I think, ironically:

But us linguists do like a dose of legibility.

I mention this simply to back up my assertion that this construction is normal in informal discourse even among the highly educated such as SD3 and I.

Maybe she was kidding. Are you?