Forums → The Tavern → "It" - English Pronouns and Grammar

I want to continue off of this, though first off I want to make sure it's clear that I understand that it's a slang term...

First, I've yet to find a source that says directly that you can't use it as an impersonal pronoun without prior reference (to the subject) that is within the same sentence. And you have yet to produce any source that would agree or disagree that the sentence is definitively slang. But, you are still definitely correct about using they're.But's that's only half the "battle"

The problem with trying to break the sentences down into general terms is that English often has special cases.

Then show me the special case that states that if it refers to a noun that the subject of the sentences cannot fit (ferrets can't have the quality of irresponsibility) then you can't use it and an alternate sentence construction must be formed.

Regardless, in the It's ferrets, after all. construction, it is the pronoun and the antecedent is irresponsibility. Within English grammar, irresponsibility is singular and it is as well. The sentence is correct other than the use of the impersonal it (which has an implied antecedent, irresponsibility in the previous sentence. And this may or may not be slang).

This is why I have a problem with the, "can the ferrets be irresponsible" question. It has no bearing on the pronoun and antecedent agreement. If the sentence was saying something like ferrets are shirts or ferrets are apples. Then it might have some affect on the agreement. But even then if the sentence is meant as a joke, the construction may still be in agreement and work properly.

"Irresponsibility is ferrets" - the main problem with this is a special case.

It's a metaphor. (Not simile) The reverse would be, "Ferrets are irresponsibility."

I rephrased it, "Irresponsibility is ferrets" , because you said this:

It seemed to me more like "It's their nature being ferrets, after all." "their* type of lifestyle" would be more of the case that they're more dependent on lifestyle and not on them being ferrets, which likely is not the case. They have a choice to change their lifestyle, but they can't make themselves not be ferrets.

It makes little difference whether I use lifestyle or or nature of being. As ferrets would be born into the irresponsible lifestyle, it would be a trait almost nearly intrinsic, but changeable. Which is what you said. But the essence of the sentence gathers that ferrets so accept the lifestyle of irresponsibility that they strongly represent it. It's a metaphor. (Not simile)

It's like if I were to say "Whine is high class." People can drink whine out of a box. That's not very high class. But what the sentence is getting at, is that whine as been associated with high class society for so long, that whine, in essence, embodies and is strongly related to high class society. The way you want the sentence to go is "Whine is grapes." As if it must comment on the direct "nature" or ingredients of the object/persona at hand.

Either way you wouldn't say "The nature of ferrets are irresponsibility." The sentence would read "The nature of ferrets is irresponsibility."

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. They are ferrets, after all.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's their nature, after all.

Irresponsibility is ferrets. It's there nature, their way of life. (Ferrets so closely embody irresponsibility that they actually become it. Hence, the metaphor.)

If I said "Complacency is Perth, after all" (though the better phrase would probably be "Perth is complacent, after all" since not all complacency is Perth)

The first way it's phrased is better. "Perth is complacent." just sounds like you are referring to one person by heir last name and that they are complacent. You're making a metaphor. Not all complacency is Perth, but it's a metaphor.

"All the worldâs a stage,..."

This quote is a metaphor because the world is not literally a stage.

From Shakespeare off the Wikipedia page for metaphor.

That conclusion is, I think, the humorous intent you are looking for, since it assumes a stereotype that the reader probably would not be familiar with but makes the statement as common knowledge.

So you agree?

--------------------------
This has been way overcomplicated. All that needs to be stated is this:
It refers to irresponsibility. Irresponsibility is singular and also it as well. Sentence works in English under these conditions.

Strop was right. I apparently uncovered a difficult thing to understand regarding to the English language.

I fail to see the difference. When examining "it's" as opposed to "they're" wouldn't either make sense?

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. They are ferrets, after all.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's their nature, after all.

They're exactly the same in validity, aren't they?

They're exactly the same in validity, aren't they?

Yes! lol, that's basically what I'm trying to say.

They're ferrets, after all.
Which basically means, "Hey, it's their thing, after all"

They refers to the ferrets.

It's ferrets, after all.
It (Irresponsibility) is (the) ferrets (nature), after all.

It refers to the idea of irresponsibility and
the words the and nature is implied.

Which basically means, "Hey, it's their thing, after all."

It's two different ways of saying the same thing. It's might be more the spoken form and a little more "loose" in grammar. But it's still common and I have yet to find a clear source stating that it is wrong.

...the words the and nature is implied.

..the words the and nature are implied.*

Well it's cool that you think that, but you're wrong. The sentence as given was wrong. Ferrets is indeed the subject and must indeed be paired with the plural they are. You have constructed a complex argument based on semantic inference that, while unlikely, is also irrelevant.

Discretely, the sentence doesn't work. The subject and the verb don't agree. That's it. Conversation over. If the subject and verb fail to agree then the sentence is incorrect. No room for esoteric finagling.

They're exactly the same in validity, aren't they?

Of course they are. You're considering semantics where you should be considering grammar. One can infer the meaning of the original sentence with a high degree of certainty. However, a sentence isn't correct because someone can infer its meaning. The fact is that inference from another context is required before the original sentence has any parseable semantic meaning whatsoever. The original text as presented doesn't really even have a literal meaning. It, in a very literal reading, just doesn't make any sense at all because the subject and the verb don't agree.

The sentence is wrong.For what it's worth, I would not be opposed to using the sentence in a colloquial setting to give the meaning described (a broader sense of ferrets). However, that's because I would be talking with people I know would likely make that inference, and you shouldn't confuse that with any actual validity the sentence might have. Its meaning is externally constructed because the sentence itself has no meaning. The subject and verb do not agree. It is not a different meaning, it is an error. I won't contest your right to say it deliberately, but you should recognize that the sentence means nothing, really, and is incorrect. Because subject/verb agreement.

The core point I'm making here is that while the semantics are interesting, they have nothing to do with whether the sentence is correct or incorrect. It is incorrect.

Well it's cool that you think that, but you're wrong. The sentence as given was wrong. Ferrets is indeed the subject and must indeed be paired with the plural they are. You have constructed a complex argument based on semantic inference that, while unlikely, is also irrelevant.

This is totally relevant and common practice in English.
You already contradict in you're own argument in a few places:

For what it's worth, I would not be opposed to using the sentence in a colloquial setting to give the meaning described (a broader sense of ferrets).

What is it referring to in your sentence? I supposed you'd have to make an inference that it is referring to some vague concept of the situation at hand.

And again,

It is incorrect.

If I have to follow the rule you have laid out, your last sentence should read, "The sentence is correct." You have an impersonal pronoun it in your sentence. The is no other word for that it to refer to other than is and incorrect. You have a sentence with no subject according to what you are saying.


This is what I am talking about, the sentence may be in the strictest definition of English incorrect (and I have yet to see a direct explanation as to why), but in English using it in such a manner is so commonplace and so difficult to work around without being overly wordy or sounding strange, that even in more formal writing it seems to be accepted.

Being a grammar thread, I figure I can fix some of the mistakes I made.

You already contradict yourself* in you're own argument in a few places:
There* is no other word for that it to refer to other than is and incorrect.

Also, I decided to find all the instances of it that refer to no clear antecedent.

Well it's cool that you think that, but you're wrong.

What does it refer to?

The subject and the verb don't agree. That's it.

What does it refer to?

However, a sentence isn't correct because someone can infer its meaning.

This sentence is correct, I just want to point out the difference between pronoun antecedent agreement and subject verb agreement.

Pronoun antecedent agreement. Antecedent = sentence, pronoun = it. Subject = sentence verb = is

For what it's worth, I would not be opposed to using the sentence in a colloquial setting to give the meaning described (a broader sense of ferrets)

.
What is it referring to?

Its meaning is externally constructed because the sentence itself has no meaning.

What is its referring to?
The it here is externally constructed. (Unless you were saying its as in the word its.)

It is not a different meaning, it is an error.

What are both of the its referring to?

I won't contest your right to say it deliberately, but you should recognize that the sentence means nothing, really, and is incorrect.

What is it referring to?

It is incorrect.

What is it referring to?

And just to see how similar this last sentence is with the original sentence:

It is incorrect.

=
It's incorrect.
It's incorrect, after all
It's ferrets, after all

So is this thread about the use of "it" in general, its use in the specific sentence about Ferrets, or both?

The sentence seems to extremely wishy-washy when it comes to the grammar aspect. I, at least, would never say it in real life, nor would others really understand what I would be trying to say in the situation at hand.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.

You can definitely drudge out a meaning from this sentence, but the way "it" is used makes it unnecessarily vague. Not to mention that fact that, like you said, "it" refers to "irresponsibility" when "irresponsible" is the actual word being used.

I feel like I'm repeating a number of arguments that were already used, but I had to post something after wasting a bunch of time reading the darned thread so many times!

I, at least, would never say it in real life, nor would others really understand what I would be trying to say in the situation at hand.

What are you talking about?

It's commonplace in spoken English to use it in replace of the noun.

Where is it?
What happened to it?
How is it going?
It doesn't matter.
Do you want it or not?
It's gone.
It's vacation time.
Is it just me or is it hot in here?
How did it happen?
When it went down, it was a mess.
It should be ready any minute.

I see these as some common uses of it in spoken English. Sure they may not be sentences of strictly proper grammar use, but they're used all the time.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.

I doubt you would say,

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. The ferrets live lives that are highly irresponsibly after all.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.
I understood the sentence without pause. This sentence is not difficult to figure out. Three or four people who posted about it in the thread understood the sentence and then "corrected" it.

Just look at my own sentence.

Three or four people who posted about it in the thread understood the sentence and then "corrected" it.

This sentence could be rewritten:

Three or four people who posted about the sentence in the thread understood the sentence and then "corrected" the sentence.

But who talks like that? It's so wordy and repetitive.

Uhh ohh, are you not going to be able to understand this sentence:

But who talks like that? It's so wordy and repetitive.

I said it's instead of the sentence. Do you really need to see the sentence in quotes above like this:

But who talks like that? The sentence is so wordy and repetitive.

Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.
The inference is easy. All the explanation about the inference is causing you native speakers confuse, because a the situation is rare in which you need to dissect your own language to understand it.

Or do I need to rephrase that:

All the explanation about the inference is causing you native speakers confuse, because a the situation is rare in which you need to dissect your own language to understand your own language.

Clunky, no?

What does it refer to?

In the sentence? Strictly? Nothing. From context it is clear that it refers to a worldview. It is subject. Grammatically, the sentence is flawless. You're confusing issues of grammar and semantics.

The subject and the verb don't agree. That's it.

What does it refer to?

The demonstrative pronoun "that". What else could it refer to?

I would continue to waste all of our valuable time clarifying my usage of the word it, but I think it an insult to both of our intelligences.

It is obvious that you don't understand the fundamental grammatical rule in practice here. Which is fine, that is a result of my failing to explain it to you properly. But I am neither a great orator nor a master of reasoning. Because of my imperfect faculties, I'm going to have to ask you to meet me half way: you are not in a debate. You are not arguing. There is no argument. No winner and no loser. No one here is debating whether or not the sentence was wrong, because it's not up for debate. The sentence was wrong. Now, do you want to learn why?

If so, you must first abandon the stock you've placed in previously held beliefs. They will blind you to new information. Your plays at intellect have already drawn out a simple issue into a complex red herring. As soon as you find it in yourself to stop attempting to argue a side but actually try to learn about the issue, you will gain knowledge.

If, on the other hand, you have no interest in learning but instead seek to advance your incorrect view, well, I personally don't have anything against such behavior. If you think your belief is right, you should fight for it, and to hell with anyone who says otherwise. But do not seek to match words with me, Reton, and know, in your heart, that you are wrong.

Anyway, your quotes from my passage indicate that I haven't explained the difference between semantics and structure properly, nor how they are related.

I don't know quite how to, either. Basically, it doesn't matter what you think the sentence means, or how contexts might indicate what it means. It is structurally illogical. Therefore, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's not wrong because it is meaningless, it is meaningless because it is wrong. Try to consider the issue structurally. Break it down into its composite parts.

Try to get away from your argument about general uses of "it", not because it is a weak argument (it breaks down under examination, as a hard rule, though), but because it isn't a relevant argument. People using it like that has nothing to do with the grammatical validity of the sentence. It's super crazy simple: do the subject and verb agree? No. So it's wrong. See?

Now, to further explain the notion of an externally constructed meaning... what I mean is your sentence is actually not parseable without someone adding information that is not in the sentence. Note that this isn't the semantic meaning. Consider the sentence:

"It is red." What does it mean? It's not clear. Doesn't matter. The sentence is perfectly parseable. Its meaning is clear: it, whatever it is, is blue. However, your sentence is not readable in the strictest sense. "It's ferrets" means nothing because it is not a logical construction supported by the language. It can't be read per se.

Now, there can be meaningless, unparseable sentences without being grammatically incorrect. Not all unparseable sentences are grammatically incorrect, but all grammatically incorrect sentences are technically unparseable, since a grammar error constitutes illegal use of language features. Draw the venn diagram in your head.

What is and is not grammatical is ultimately not the same as what you might decide you personally do and do not wish to say. But you should be aware of grammar and how you're breaking it, if you aren't. If anything remains unclear, I'll try to be available to explain it, and, while I am neither a great reasoner nor a great proponent of rationalism, I could also offer brief descriptions of errors in logic you have made in ultimately irrelevant arguments. Don't expect my services in that regard to be of much use, though, as I am merely an amateur analyst and weak elocutor.

But do not seek to match words with me, Reton, and know, in your heart, that you are wrong.

What are the qualifications of your intelligence? I can tell you that I have dulled my intellect by years of easy thinking, but don't take me for a fool. (I'm curious to know your credentials, just to see what I'm up against. You don't have to tell me, but I'm very curious.)

Well, I've messed this one up badly. I focused on all the wrong areas of your first post Xzeno. I hope that you can understand my confusion as pronoun antecedent agreement is there, but subject and verb agreement is not, unless I add the "implied words", but then the sentence breaks down into slang because certain words are implied, but not actually there.

You have to see the confusion as sentences of the kind, "How is it?" are spoken all the time.

Also, I should have made myself more clear that I wasn't necessarily trying to prove that the sentence was correct grammatically. I wanted to show more that it would probably not sound that strange, if spoken (yet it would still be grammatically incorrect). (I wasn't sure of it's correctness until the "It is red." example.)

I made an initial mistake here from the other thread:

But if it is referring to the irresponsibility of the ferrets the sentences are both correct.

Subject and verb agree (it and is) but It can't be ferrets. Maybe only in a poetic sense, but then it is still grammatically incorrect. You don't have a proper predicate. it can be red, or dull, or sharp. And only then do you have a full sentence. It which is the subject and is red the predicate. Which is what you have just said. Right?

You could use it poetically. No? I'm assuming there are books and poems that bend and break the rules.

I also said the following:

So the second sentence is either correct or slang. But even as slang it's a common occurrence form native speakers.

and

I post this, because I rarely speak a second language out of fear of being laughed at how miserable I am at it. So, when I see a "correction" to a sentence without the qualifier that the sentence could still be correct (or at least commonly used, although grammatically incorrect) I get really irked. It's a great way to deter people from using a second language.

and

It refers to irresponsibility. Irresponsibility is singular and also it as well. Sentence works in English under these conditions.

I said it works. I didn't say it was correct. But I feel I'm wrong here also, as I did not make myself clear.

It's two different ways of saying the same thing. It's might be more the spoken form and a little more "loose" in grammar. But it's still common and I have yet to find a clear source stating that it is wrong.

I've been waiting for someone to show me how the sentence is wrong. But, I was also trying to convey that it is not correct. I suppose I should have been more definitive in my wording and just have stated clearly that the sentence is grammatically incorrect or that I wasn't even sure myself. I also should have stated that the sentence should not be so uncommon in spoken/slang context.

My internal decision on the grammatical correctness of the sentence changed several times while typing my responses and I see that my indecision has bled through straight into my responses.


That's it.
That is it.


The subject is that and the predicate is is it?
Does this actually work as a sentence? Can is it stand as a predicate?
You have a demonstrative pronoun that, a verb is, and a pronoun it.
I'm asking you, because I really don't know this one. All I have is this,
That is it.
It is red.
Therefore,
That is red.
And you arrive at a correct sentence, no? And this makes the original sentence correct? No?

Also, from the book Correct Writing Book; Sixth Edition (1995):

Impersonal Use of the Personal Pronoun:
Remember that pronouns are frequently used impersonally and when so used do not have antecedents. Notice the correct impersonal use of it in the statements about weather, time, and distance:

It looks like rain. [Reference to weather.]

It is now twelve o'clock. [Reference to time.]

How far is it to the nearest town? [Reference to distance.]
(p. 167)

and this site.

Both sites make the rule of it appear as if the word it can only be used without a prior noun, within the same sentence, when referring to time, weather, or distance. But there is no clarifications from either source as to whether or not this is true. Why specify time, weather, and distance if the word it can be used otherwise?


Lastly, you underestimate me.

A handful of nouns appear to be plural in form but take a singular verb:

The news is bad.
Gymnastics is fun to watch.
Economics/mathematics/statistics is said to be difficult. ("Economics" can sometimes be a plural concept, as in "The economics of the situation demand that . . . .&quot

Source: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu

Language is alive and can change. Words can enter and leave the lexicon (Google used as a verb.) (Ships becomes a verb, circa 1300 [If I read that correctly.]) Right now, "It's ferrets, after all." May only work as spoken English slang, but when you see the word ferrets absorb a new meaning as noun that appears plural and takes a singular verb, you'll remember this post!

It's ferrety, after all!

I have come up with a way to explain myself more clearly. I set my mind to find one answer, while blinding myself to the actual question at hand.

I had concerned myself completely with first understanding the proper use of the word it in a sentence, and then the pronoun-antecedent agreement, without seeing that verb-subject agreement should be examined first in determining the sentences grammatical validity.

I'm still frustrated with this because I cannot find a source to make things clear.

This site, states it should not be used ambiguously. This, however does not appear to be stated as a hard rule, but rather a strong suggestion.

I also have to sources (I mentioned in my last post and prior) that state that the word it can be used as the subject of a sentence when referring to weather, time, or distance. Both sources do not make it obvious as to how strict one has to be when using the word it as the subject.

Empty subject it. This is the best I could find and it looks as if it is possible to use the word it without the word it referring to a prior noun in the sentence. I don't know how trustworthy the source is, however.

On one hand, if it cannot be used as the subject, without referring to a prior noun or relating, to time, weather, or distance, then any sentence with the word it is the subject is incorrect (unless referring to time weather or distance).

On the other hand, if it can be used as the subject of a sentence, without prior reference to a noun within the same sentence, then many sentences with it as the subject are correct.

[quote]What does it refer to?

In the sentence? Strictly? Nothing. From context it is clear that it refers to a worldview. It is subject. Grammatically, the sentence is flawless. You're confusing issues of grammar and semantics.[/quote]

I see what you did there, but I put it in italics (I was referring to the word it itself in a similar manner to these people.)
But you could have used some of the its were I failed to italicize them.

It seems like most of what you're saying is irrelevant to the original phrase - simply put, "It is ferrets" is not very correct, since ferrets is plural and cannot be 'it'. Irresponsibility doesn't really work either, since it is more of a word to describe ferrets, not the other way around.

Considering the topic I made says "It" - English Pronouns and Grammar. Most of my first post on this page is not arguing the validity of the first sentence ("It's ferrets, after all.&quotbut, just asking about the general use of the word it.

We're talking about grammar here, not about bending or breaking the rules.

I suppose I need to make myself more clear again. I have already conceded to the fact that the sentence "It's ferrets, after all." Is grammatically incorrect. I just want to know if such usage could be used poetically. I also stated, that I really wasn't trying to prove the exact correctness of the sentence (although, I hotly "argued" it, which did not make my purpose clear).

I just wanted to make clear that such sentences ("How is it?&quot are still used and heard in daily English speech (by native speakers).

A triple post, sorry, but I forgot to say.

[quote]A handful of nouns appear to be plural in form but take a singular verb:

Still irrelevant. 'Ferrets' is most definitely plural per se, or even given the context.[/quote]

That had nothing to do with saying ferrets is not plural (ferrets, as a word is [of course] plural and takes only plural verbs).

I was getting at something else there.

Well, now we're past that roadblock...

I got lost trying to prove the sentence could work colloquially and also sprinkled in my own confusion as to whether or not the sentence was grammatically incorrect.

So the second sentence is either correct or slang. But even as slang it's a common occurrence form native speakers.

See, early on, I was not sure of the use. But, I was shocked at how it seemed like no one would ever speak that way, when I'm fairly confident phrases like "How is it?" ("How is it going?&quot are said often and are understood. I'm not saying these sentences are grammatically correct. I'm just saying that in one's typical spoken/online text use, it should not be so uncommon to come across such a colloquialism.

No one said "Hey, Reton it's flat wrong solely because the subject and verb do not agree." Until just recently. I was showing why I thought the sentence could be correct (which I see is not possible, now). But anyone who actually knew the reason why the sentence was incorrect and was certain about it would just restate that it's simply wrong because subject and verb do not agree.

People using it like that has nothing to do with the grammatical validity of the sentence. It's super crazy simple: do the subject and verb agree? No. So it's wrong. See?

Oh, look when someone came along with the correct answer, that's what they did, they just restated what they said early, because they were confident in their correctness.

Distance is the same as the last two. It's singular in idea (reference time), and context clues to the meaning of what 'it' is referring to.

I suppose that the use of it should fit one of these categories in the table from this:site. (scroll down on the site to see the table.)

I just wish I had a better source with a more clear explanation on how grammatically correct the uses are.

From what I have gathered at this point, it is okay to have a sentence like,"It is hot." But it's better to say, "The stove is hot." or something to that effect.

(My confusion comes in because I once had a teacher who basically said do not use "It" when the subject is not defined, in the same sentence, unless referring to time, weather, or distance.

Often clues to the subject are given within a sentence or the subject is given in a previous sentence so that it is not very difficult to understand the meaning of the sentence containing "it".

I just can't find a good source that goes in depth with the English use of it.)