[Grammar] I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it could not be installed on

[Matthew Wai]

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it could not be installed on a USB stick because it could not detect any of my USB devices."—quoted from another forum.


Grammatically, what do the three "it"s refer to? Should "it" refer to the closest noun?

 

[Tdol]

Puppy 4.1.2

 

[Raymott]

No, "it" doesn't have to refer to the closest noun. It can refer to something else. The determinant is the magic c-word. (Context)

 

[Matthew Wai]

The context below (rather than grammar) has determined that the second and the third "it"s do NOT refer to Puppy 4.1.2. Am I right?

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive."

 

[Raymott]

Well, no. You can't do that either. You could if "it" referred to the nearest noun, but it doesn't.

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD. But the DVD cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive." This is better. The last 'it' is meant to refer to the tablet, but we only know that from the understanding that a DVD logically can't have a DVD drive, so it must refer to the tablet.

You can need to consider the grammar and the context. But the simplest thing to do is to write your sentence and see if there's any ambiguity. Sometimes, you're stuck with "I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but the DVD cannot be inserted into a tablet because the tablet has no DVD drive."
If you have to repeat words to make the meaning clear, then that's what you do.

If you wrote "I downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it doesn't work", it's unclear whether you're saying that Puppy doesn't work or the DVD doesn't work.

I don't think I've contradicted myself, but you can let me know if I have.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive."

Well, no. You can't do that either. You could if "it" referred to the nearest noun, but it doesn't.

"It" does not necessarily refer to the nearest noun, and it is logically possible to insert Puppy 4.1.2, a piece of software, into a tablet, so the second "it" possibly refers to Puppy 4.1.2.
Have I understood correctly?

 

[Raymott]

I think it's stretching the language to say that it's possible to insert a piece of software into a tablet. I've never heard insert being used this way. Then, given that you've burned it onto a DVD, and this is also in the sentence, it becomes vanishingly unlikely to suggest that the second 'it' could refer to Puppy 4.1.2.
Then, when you give the reason that "it" cannot be inserted into the tablet because the tablet has no DVD drive, it becomes almost impossible for the second 'it' to refer to Puppy 4.1.2. The reason for this is that just because you have burned Puppy 4.1.2. onto a DVD and that the tablet has no DVD drive, you cannot deduce that it's impossible to load the program onto the tablet. You have downloaded it onto some form of machine, and you could possibly transfer it to the tablet via a flash drive or other means.

But quite apart from analysing the exact structure of this sentence, a sentence used in language should be easily understood. So, even if you could make the claim that any "it" can logically refer to any noun in the sentence, that's not the way we use language.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Sorry, I am confused.

The context below (rather than grammar) has determined that the second and the third "it"s do NOT refer to Puppy 4.1.2. Am I right?

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive."

Well, no.

Does "no" mean "No, the second and the third 'it's do not refer to Puppy 4.1.2"?

 

[jutfrank]

The context below (rather than grammar) has determined that the second and the third "it"s do NOT refer to Puppy 4.1.2. Am I right?

"I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive."

The first red it seems to refer to DVD and the second to tablet.

This post is confusing me, Matthew. Was it you who wrote the sentence on the forum? If so, then why are you asking us what you mean?

 

[Tdol]

"It" does not necessarily refer to the nearest noun, and it is logically possible to insert Puppy 4.1.2, a piece of software, into a tablet, so the second "it" possibly refers to Puppy 4.1.2.
Have I understood correctly?

I would say that the second it refers to the burned file(s) of Puppy 4.1.2 on the DVD or the C drive that could not be copied to the memory stick.

 

[jutfrank]

As Raymott says in post #7, you can only insert a disc into a disc drive, not software.

 

[Raymott]

Well, no. You can't do that either.

Regarding #4 and #5:

The context below (rather than grammar) has determined that the second and the third "it"s do NOT refer to Puppy 4.1.2. Am I right?

What I meant was, "No. the sentence is wrong, so there is no meaningful context." If the sentence was meaningful, yes it would have been the context rather than the grammar that determines it. But it's a bad sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Was it you who wrote the sentence on the forum? If so, then why are you asking us what you mean?

I wrote the sentence, but my intended meaning could be different from your perceived meaning, so I asked the question.

The first red it seems to refer to DVD and the second to tablet.

That is my intended meaning.

As Raymott says in post #7, you can only insert a disc into a disc drive, not software.

I intentionally wrote "inserted" so as to exclude the possibility of the second "it" referring to "Puppy", a piece of software.

"No. the sentence is wrong, so there is no meaningful context."

The sentence is wrong because the second "it" does not unambiguously refer to "DVD". Am I right?

 

[Raymott]

The sentence is wrong because the second "it" does not unambiguously refer to "DVD". Am I right?

The sentence is wrong (if you are referring to the second sentence in post #4) because it has two 'it' which are ambiguous.

 

[Matthew Wai]

1. I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it could not be installed on a USB stick because it could not detect any of my USB devices.
2. I had downloaded Puppy 4.1.2 and burned it to a DVD, but it cannot be inserted into a tablet because it has no DVD drive.

In 1, the second and third "it"s are not ambiguous because the three "it"s logically refer to the same thing.
In 2, the second and third "it"s are ambiguous because the three "it"s can't logically refer to the same thing.

May I say the above?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I used the sentence on a support forum. I was talking to an expert.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Strictly speaking, if there is more than one singular noun before "it", "it" will be ambiguous, so "it" simply should not be used for the meaning to be clear.

Is it correct to say the above?