Here's the backstory, just skip down to The fifth rebuttal: (Underneath the dashed line) if you don't care for the backstory.
The sentence: Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.
The correction: They're* ferrets after all.
The rebuttal: It's ferrets, after all. It's sounds correct to me. Using the word It conveys a broader sense of the topic at hand (which is ferrets) instead of referring directly to the animal.
The second rebuttal: It (is) implies only one subject, while they (are) implies many. Since the direct object (ferrets) is plural, the latter would be correct.
The third rebuttal: Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.
could be read as:
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's their type of lifestyle, after all.
Irresponsibility is the antecedent and noun that it is referring to. Irresponsibility is not directly in the first sentence, but can be derived from it. Irresponsibility is a singular noun. Therefore, "It's there type of lifestyle, after all." is correct and so are the sentences Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's ferrets, after all.
The sentence could read: Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. Irresponsibility is their type of lifestyle, after all. Which avoids ambiguity from It's.
So It's ferrets, after all. is either correct or slang. But even as slang it's a common occurrence form native speakers.
The fourth rebuttal: That's not really how I gathered it, very much at all. 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. I suppose you could look at it as irresponsibility being tempting, but in direct correlation with ferrets it doesn't make all that much sense to me. So, in conclusion, I see that the sentence must come out one of two ways:
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. They're ferrets, after all. (Referring directly to ferrets, and their tendency to be irresponsible. Kind of a redundant statement put together, but oh well.)
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's irresponsibility, after all. (Referring directly to irresponsibility, because one could see the temptation to live your life irresponsibly. The less redundant statement of the two.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fifth rebuttal: They have a choice to change their lifestyle, but they can't make themselves not be ferrets. This whole thing about whether or not they can change their lifestyle. That has no bearing, no influence, nothing to do with the sentence structure and grammar. Both sentences are a joke. Are ferrets irresponsible? Probably not, but it could be possible or at the least possible in the creative/cartoon realm. So, just because irresponsibility and ferrets doesn't work well for you it has nothing to do with the sentence and the grammar at all. You're not arguing actual grammar rules here, but the essence of ferrets.
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. They're ferrets, after all. (Referring directly to ferrets, and their tendency to be irresponsible. Kind of a redundant statement put together, but oh well.)
This seems redundant to you because you're breaking down the sentence and examining for an extended period. I know because the same thing crossed my mind. But, this is not redundant. The second sentence reinforces the first. It also lets the reader know that irresponsibility is common to ferrets in general (although irresponsible ferrets may not be true, as a joke it works and this is a comedic sentence).
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It's irresponsibility, after all. (Referring directly to irresponsibility, because one could see the temptation to live your life irresponsibly. The less redundant statement of the two.)
This doesn't work with the situation at hand. it would not make sense to use this sentence in this situation. The whole topic prior to this and within the sentence is ferrets. The two sentences are comments on ferrets and there lifestyles. Using the sentence you have would work if the topic was irresponsibility and we were highlighting that even animals like to live irresponsibly.
Here is the simple way to rephrase the sentence and avoid ambiguity:
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. Irresponsibility is ferrets, after all.
The second sentence tells the reader that the ferrets don't just enjoy irresponsibly but it encompasses their lifestyle and behavior. Don't make the mistake of arguing whether or not the ferrets can actually be irresponsible. The whole point of the two sentences was a joke, they're supposed to far fetched.
What is 'it' that is being called - the dog, the bird, or the twig? I mean, logically, it would probably be the dog unless you have a pet bird that you let outside, but with just grammar logic it takes a moment to try to figure out what the identifier would apply to.
Well, that introduces ambiguity and should be avoided.
It would have to be they're(they are). It's (it is) can only be used in the case of a singular entity. (It's a ferret, after all.) Since there is more than one ferret, it would be: They're ferrets, after all.
If you really want to be proper, the most correct form would be: They are ferrets, after all. Which is still bad grammar.
This is a no-win scenario.
Source: I live with an English teacher, no he does not proofread every comment I make so my grammar my not be the best.
It's super crazy simple: do the subject and verb agree? No.
I've actually been thinking about this. If you take the first and second sentences together:
Ferrets like to live their lives irresponsibly. It is ferrets, after all.
Then the subject of the first sentence does not match with the subject of the second sentence. So, yes the subject it and the verb is (taken together) do not agree with ferrets (are).
In other words, as I have been saying all along, the pronoun (it) does not agree with the antecedent (ferrets).
But, let's take the second sentence alone (and remove the (prepositional phrase?)after all):
It is ferrets.
The subject and verb agree just fine. It is the subject and the is is the verb. The problem with this sentence, as a stand alone sentence, is that the predicate has no meaning. You have the subject (noun) It and the predicate (verb phrase? or some strange mix of phrasal types.) is ferrets.
I'm not 100% certain of this, but I would say the second phrase is incorrect because it fails to have a proper predicate and the pronoun does not agree with the antecedent.
From further reading, I am seeing that the sentence (It is ferrets.) is incorrect because the grammatically number of the noun (ferrets - plural) does not agree with the pronoun (it - singular) and the verb (is - singular) that goes with that pronoun.
In other words, the pronoun (it) and the verb (is) have not been properly inflected to agree with the noun (ferrets).
(Or, when looking at the sentence "It's ferrets." as a standalone sentence, one could say that the wrong noun [ferrets] was chosen. The noun ferret should have been chosen instead and the article a should have been introduced before the noun [to obtain, "It is a ferret."].)
The subject and verb still agree in the sentence "It is ferrets." The sentence is incorrect because the of the pronoun have the wrong inflection.
You know, I was thinking about this in my English class today while our teacher told us to work while he did nothing, and I figured it out pretty much the same thing you did. I was about to post it here, but then you already had posted it!
Then I started thinking about the sentence "He is many things." Or, I guess,"It is many things." Is that technically a sentence like "It is ferrets?" I'm pretty sure I've heard it in conversation, and it seems to work in my mind. I'm still unsure though as if "many things" works like "ferrets" as well.
This is a tricky sentence. Very interesting! Similar to what jeol said, and I also don't know if I am 100% correct on this. The sentence works or doesn't depending on whether or not things is a count noun or a not (noncount noun).
Countable and Uncountable Nouns A count noun is one that can be expressed in plural form, usually with an "s." For example, "catâ"cats," "seasonâ"seasons," "studentâ"students."
A noncount noun is one that usually cannot be expressed in a plural form. For example, "milk," "water," "air," "money," "food." Usually, you can't say, "He had many moneys."
Much/Many: Much modifies only uncountable nouns. Many modifies only countable nouns.
"We don't have much time to get this done." "Many Americans travel to Europe."
The noun things appears to be a count noun in the sentence, "It is many things". Keep in mind, in English some nouns can fit both count and noncount categories:
Exception: The rule needs to be slightly revised for a number of nouns. Certain nouns in English belong to both classes: they have both a noncount and a count meaning. Normally, the noncount meaning is abstract and general, and the count meaning is concrete and specific.
Example: Count The researcher had to overcome some specific problems to collect the data. Noncount The researcher had no problem finding studies that supported his view.
I would say that things is a count noun in the sentence "It is many things." Notice how problems and Americans are considered count nouns in their respective examples above. Also, notice how all three of them end in an s and are plural (things, problems, Americans).
Looking at the example: "Many Americans travel to Europe." Many modifies the count nounAmericans which is similar to the sentence we are given, It is many things. - Things is a count noun and is properly modified by the adjective/determiner (and quantifier) many. - It is the subject and is many things is the predicate. - It is a pronoun and refers to an antecedent that we do not know what it is because we do not have another sentence to give a context. We must assume that whatever it is referring to, is a singular entity as the word it in English is singular.
I would say the sentence is grammatically correct because is many things comments on the the subject in question but not directly. Had the sentence read, "It is things." This would more closely mirror the "It is ferrets." sentence and then would be incorrect. The sentence would have to read "It is a thing."
To further this, I'm going to say that (according to our sentence, "It is many things") we can consider it as a collective noun and you have It being a group of things. Which allows the It to agree with things and cause a correct sentence.
But, I'm not sure. Putting the determiner many before things changes the sentence and I have a strong feelings this is why the sentence is correct. I'm not sure of this at all though.
"It is ferrets." and "It is many things." Are different sentences with different predicates. "It is many things." may actually have a proper predicate.
If I said, "Jimmy is a dance, actor, musician, race car draiver, and blacksmith. He is many things."
It is not correct to say "They are many things." because They is a pronoun that does not agree with the antecedent Jimmy. So, "It is many things. is not incorrect because it contains it is. An engine is a group of parts. Engines are a group of parts.
Notice how, although the engine and the engines are all considered groups of parts one noun receives a plural verb and the other receives a singular verb. This is because engine could be considered a collective noun. From Wikipeida: Collective Nouns
In linguistics, a collective noun is the name of a number (or collection) of people or things taken together and spoken of as one whole. For example, in the phrase "a pride of lions", pride is a collective noun.
An engine may be thought of as a collection of parts yet it is spoken of as one whole. One could say "...a pride of lions." and also "...prides of lions." Notice how in "...a pride of lions." how pride need not be plural to match lions and is correct as stated.
It is many things. It could be considered a collective noun in this instance because of the word it and it's ambiguous nature (the word is a pronoun). Also, we know that it consists or many abstract ideas or many actual things.
I suppose that you can say "Jim does many things." and it would not be correct to say, "Jim do many things." However, neither is "I does many things." it would be "I do many things." The subject must agree with the auxiliary verb do. The noun, things does not have any bearing on the verb do/does in this instance.
The object at hand is singular, It and what it is, is multiple things. It sounds wrong to me in my head and right. Let's say it is a Swiss Army Knife. "The Swiss Army Knife is multiple things." I suppose it would be correct to change the sentence to "The Swiss Army Knife is multifaceted. or "The Swiss Army Knife has many parts." "...is many things" sounds less correct (or wrong) compared to "...has many parts." But remember "..is ferrets" does not work because ferrets is a noun that is plural. While is many links a singular verb with an adjective. (?)
I don't know at this point. I don't know all the different components of a sentence well enough and I have probably been over thinking this to the point were it's making it harder for me to see the answer.
I would like to ask a professor about this one or ask a linguist.
