it is you who...

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by Batfink

It does not "sound" right because "it" is the subjective pronoun and "you" is the objective pronoun. Ah, nothing like an empty "it" to get the heads rolling.

But the verb 'be' is copula and theoretically cannot take an object. Ordinary usage favours object pronouns here, but it is hard to show an object relationship to 'it' here.

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by banderas

perhaps I should leave it but...I remember reading some newspaper and come across (I am sure 100%) "it is people who make..." Could any one comment on it, please?

There's the principle of proximity, where words very close together can affect each other and over-ride the grammar or maths involved. An example is 'there ... a man and a woman outside. The proximity of the verb and 'a man' means that even though we are clearly talking about two people, the vast majority of speakers would use a singular verb. In your example most would opt for the plural for the same reason.

Then again, would you say 'a people who make' or 'a people who makes' if talking about nationhood. Singular and plural may be simple in maths, but they are anything but simple in language.

I did a poll with the question It was you who ____ wrong. At the moment, the voters in front would use 'was' for one person and 'were' for more than one, even though we would use 'you were wrong' for any number of people.

[naomimalan]

Originally Posted by banderas

Dear techers,
I am in doubt again
it is you who decide about....
it is you who decides about...

Which option is... sounds(perhaps instead of "corrrect" I should use "sounds better") to your ears and why?
Thank you.

Actually, this falls within my domain as in fact we are talking about relative clauses and this was the subject of my doctoral thesis, also of a book I published subsequently.

Both the sentences are correct, depending on whether “you” refers to one person or to more than one person.

In the above cleft sentence*, “who” is a relative pronoun introducing the relative clause “who decides about….”

In cleft sentences containing relative clauses, the antecedent** is omitted.

In, “It is you who decides about…..” the antecedent of who would most likely be something like the person or the one. It is you, the person / the one who decides about…

In, “It is you who decide about…..” the antecedent of who would most likely be something like the people or the ones. It is you, the people / the ones who decide about…


(Most teachers and people interested in linguistics will recognize the terms defined below but not everyone.)

*Cleft sentence: a syntactic construction where a single clause has been divided into two clauses: Simon saw the dog first – it was Simon who saw the dog first


**Antecedent: in the following phrase, Simon is the antecedent of the pronoun who: “Simon, who saw the dog first….”

[banderas]

Originally Posted by naomimalan

Actually, this falls within my domain as in fact we are talking about relative clauses and this was the subject of my doctoral thesis, also of a book I published subsequently.

Both the sentences are correct, depending on whether “you” refers to one person or to more than one person.

In the above cleft sentence*, “who” is a relative pronoun introducing the relative clause “who decides about….”

In cleft sentences containing relative clauses, the antecedent** is omitted.

In, “It is you who decides about…..” the antecedent of who would most likely be something like the person or the one. It is you, the person / the one who decides about…

In, “It is you who decide about…..” the antecedent of who would most likely be something like the people or the ones. It is you, the people / the ones who decide about…


(Most teachers and people interested in linguistics will recognize the terms defined below but not everyone.)

*Cleft sentence: a syntactic construction where a single clause has been divided into two clauses: Simon saw the dog first – it was Simon who saw the dog first


**Antecedent: in the following phrase, Simon is the antecedent of the pronoun who: “Simon, who saw the dog first….”

I completely agree with you here and appreciate your explanation.
My point is that I am not sure about "subject and-linking verb-sentences" like:

It is I/me who decides or
It is I/me who decide

where is the subject I should agree the verb with?
Do you think you could analyse this case, please?

[naomimalan]

Originally Posted by banderas

I completely agree with you here and appreciate your explanation.
My point is that I am not sure about "subject and-linking verb-sentences" like:

It is I/me who decides or
It is I/me who decide

where is the subject I should agree the verb with?
Do you think you could analyse this case, please?

The explanation here is the same as the one I gave before.

The sentences are cleft sentences containing relative clauses. So the antecedent is missing but we can "recover" it:

It is I/me, THE ONE who decides.

So you see, here your second sentence would be ungrammatical in English because the verb must agree with the singular of the missing antecedent, "the one".

I can't remember what your mother tongue is but what I have said here may not be the same in your language. In French, for instance, you don't have agreement with the missing antecedent but with the noun or pronoun that comes after "is":

C'est moi qui suis en retard, for instance.
It's me* who's late.

The form "suis" of the verb to be corresponds to the FIRST PERSON singular not to the THIRD PERSON singular as it does here in English.

This is because in English we make the verb agree with the missing antecedent: It's me, THE ONE who is late. But in French, as I said above, the verb agrees with the pronoun just before it (moi=me/I).

I hope this isn't too complicated but possibly the way things work in your mother tongue are preventing you from understanding what's going on in English for this type of structure.

(*or "I" if you are a stickler.)

[banderas]

Originally Posted by naomimalan

I hope this isn't too complicated but possibly the way things work in your mother tongue are preventing you from understanding what's going on in English for this type of structure. I will be surprised if I tell you that the way the things work in Polish help me understand your explanation as it is the same logic. I had to make sure what is right as loan translation is a bad teacher

(*or "I" if you are a stickler.)
Perhaps I am stickler but saying "It's me" or "him and me went downtown" is as wrong as saying:
"it don't work" or
"ten items or less" or
" How are you-I am good"
I am far away from teaching natives their own language but if make a mistake in my native language, I don't say: its ok because milions of speakers make the same mistake...

[riverkid]

Not having been thru the whole thread

If it hasn't been mentioned, is this not a possibility?

It is you [plural] that decide.

It is you [one person] who decides.

"It" could be glossed as, "The situation is/will be ..."

The situation is [gesturing with your hand to indicate a number of people] you decide.

[naomimalan]

Originally Posted by banderas;272327[I

Perhaps I am stickler but saying "It's me" or "him and me went downtown" is as wrong as saying:"it don't work" or"ten items or less" or" How are you-I am good"I am far away from teaching natives their own languagebut if make a mistake in my native language, I don't say: its ok because milions of speakers make the same mistake...[/i]]

Glad your mother tongue being Polish helped you to understand !

That great Swiss linguist Saussure explained how ungrammatical structures and forms creep into the language and finally become acceptable. First they creep into the spoken language, then after a long time into the written language. At some stage, they have made it and are acceptable.

A sentence like “Who did you give it to?” is a good example. Around the time of the 2nd World War it would have been considered unacceptable by grammarians. “To whom did you give it?” was the correct way of putting it. Today we teach “Who did you give it to?” in our classes and you can see this confirmed in the course books (which is a good criterion.)

Your sentence above, “It’s me” is another example of this. We don’t teach “It’s I” any more, it’s considered pedantic. At some stage “It’s me” won the battle.

It’s not the same for “him and me went downtown”. Maybe in a hundred years’ time it will have become acceptable but for the time being it remains ungrammatical.

It’s more or less the same for “it don’t work”. Even though it’s widespread, it’s not standard English and would not be taught in any English classes. To be correct you still have to say “it doesn’t work.”

Your next example, “ten items or less” has probably won the battle. I think it has become acceptable.

Your last example, “How are you? – I am good” is wrong. I have only ever heard it spoken by non-native speakers. “Fine thanks, and you?” would be the appropriate answer.

[banderas]

Originally Posted by naomimalan

Your last example, “How are you? – I am good” is wrong. I have only ever heard it spoken by non-native speakers. “Fine thanks, and you?” would be the appropriate answer.

I am fine, then.Thank you.

By the way, it is very interesting thread, any one else willing to comment, please?

[naomimalan]

Originally Posted by riverkid

Not having been thru the whole thread

If it hasn't been mentioned, is this not a possibility?

It is you [plural] that decide.

It is you [one person] who decides.

"It" could be glossed as, "The situation is/will be ..."

The situation is [gesturing with your hand to indicate a number of people] you decide.

It is you [plural] that decide.
It is you [one person] who decides.
Yes, actually that was said higher up.

"It" could be glossed as, "The situation is/will be ..."
The situation is [gesturing with your hand to indicate a number of people] you decide.
At a pinch, why not? But I'm a bit sceptical.
This is what Randolph Quirk et al have to say about "it" in A comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, para 2.59: "The role of the anticipatory pronoun "it" [ ... ] is essentially a structural one in the sense that it carries virtually no information in itself, but merely supplies the structural requirement for an initial subject. (Its semantic function, in so far as it has one, is merely to signal that the content of the subject is expressed in a later position in the same sentence.)"