[Grammar] It in "[noun] whose [noun] it is to do ..."

[AlJapone]

Dear teachers.

I often come across this kind of sentences:a person/things/etc. whose job/duty/function/etc. it is to ...
I suppose 'it' in the sentences is in appositive relation to nouns that follow whose. Are there any rules that govern this use of it along with apposition in general, especially rules including cases without commas for separation?
I have one more question. It is how this kind of it affects the meaning. I would also like to know what kind of tone it adds if it is just a matter of style. Please let me know your opinions.


Best wishes,
AlJapone

 

[Raymott]

Dear teachers.

I often come across this kind of sentence [STRIKE]s[/STRIKE]: a person/things/etc. whose job/duty/function/etc. it is to ...
I suppose 'it' in the sentences is in appositive relation to nouns that follow whose. Are there any rules that govern this use of it along with apposition in general, especially rules including cases without commas for separation?

I have one more question. It is how this kind of it affects the meaning. I would also like to know what kind of tone it adds if it is just a matter of style. Please let me know your opinions.


Best wishes,
AlJapone

1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee."
2. "It is the job of this person to make the coffee"

3. "The people whose job it is to catch criminals are the police."
4. "It is the job of the police to catch criminals"

There's a difference in meaning between these two ways of saying something. In sentences 2 and 4, it sppears that that is the person's/police's only job. Sentences 1 and 3, however, merely point out whose job something is.

3 and 4, for example, are the answers to the following two questions, respectively:
5. "Whose job is it to catch criminals?"
6. "What is the job of the police?"

I'm not sure what rules you want to know about.

 

[AlJapone]

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for your correction of that error in my first post. Countable or Uncountable, this is one of the hardest problems for me.
Thank you very much, Raymott.

I'm not sure what rules you want to know about.

Now I restate my questions as follows:
What is the difference between "whose ... it is to" and "whose ... is to" if you can drop (or insert) "it" retaining the meaning?
And what grammatical rules justify its insertion? I ask this because it seems, at least to me, quiet unusual that a noun and its pronoun occur side by side without commas in appositive relation of a sort.


Best wishes,
AlJapone

 

[vgv8]

"This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee."

Is it incorrect to say/write:
"This is the person whose job is to make the coffee."?

Update:
I saw the previous post by AlJapone after postingbut I am having exactly the same problem - I would never have guessed to insert "it" on my own (without copying some authoritative to me sentence structure)

 

[lauralie2]

Now I restate my questions as follows:

What is the difference between "whose ... it is to" and "whose ... is to" if you can drop (or insert) "it" retaining the meaning?

And what grammatical rules justify its insertion?

Based on what I know, you're dealing with style:

• A plumber is a person.
• It is a plumber's job to fix the pipes.

Relative Clause Formation
A plumber is a person whose job it is to repair the pipes.
​

• A plumber is a person.
• A plumber's job is to fix the pipes.

Relative Clause Formation
A plumber is a person whose job is to fix the pipes.
​

Learn more here. See also Post #24 here.

 

[AlJapone]

Thank you, lauralie2.
Now I understand why those two kinds of sentence exist and that both are grammatically correct.
I think, in hindsight, I should have understood it when I read Raymott's post, which included all the necessary information on this issue.
Thank you, everyone.

 

[TheParser]

Dear teachers.

I often come across this kind of sentences:a person/things/etc. whose job/duty/function/etc. it is to ...
I suppose 'it' in the sentences is in appositive relation to nouns that follow whose. Are there any rules that govern this use of it along with apposition in general, especially rules including cases without commas for separation?
I have one more question. It is how this kind of it affects the meaning. I would also like to know what kind of tone it adds if it is just a matter of style. Please let me know your opinions.


Best wishes,
AlJapone

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


AlJapone,


As you can see, your intriguing question has generated a lot of

interest among other members.

I have found something that may interest you.

(1) I was able to find this in Professor Randolph Quirk's authoritative

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London and

New York: Longman, 1985).

(a) On page 1394, the professor (and his colleagues) gives these

sentences:

To teach Elizabeth is a pleasure.

It is a pleasure to teach Elizabeth. [Only my comments: I guess

most grammar books would analyze this as: It (to teach Elizabeth) is a

pleasure.]

Elizabeth is a pleasure to teach.

(b) On page 1395, he writes that we can also say/write:

Elizabeth [pause] it is a pleasure to teach.

He says that this is done for "rhetorical emphasis."

And what does "rhetorical emphasis" mean? I think that

he explains it on page 1377:

It is as if the thematic element ["Elizabeth"?] is the first thing

that strikes the speaker , and the rest is added as an afterthought.

This is now only my thought:

Suppose you were Elizabeth's teacher. Let's say she is one of

your best students. One day her parents visit you to find out how

she is doing. You are very enthusiastic. You almost yell:

ELIZabeth (pause) it is a pleasure to teach!!! In other words,

Elizabeth (as the professor said) is the first thing that comes to

your mind. See how it differs from the three other ways that are

given above.

*****


A very qualified teacher of English has just told me that she

"always" uses a sentence such as:

A journalist is a person whose job it is to report the news.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

P.S. Professor Quirk's colleagues also deserve credit:

Professors Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and

Jan Svartvik.

 

[Raymott]

Is it incorrect to say/write:
"This is the person whose job is to make the coffee."?

Yes, I see now. Lauralie and her links have tackled the syntactical aspect of the question well, ie. the difference between:
1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee."
2. "This is the person whose job is to make the coffee."

I’ll make an additional note about the semantics.
"Mary's job is to make the coffee." - That's why she's here. It's her primary function.
"It's Mary's job to make the coffee." = "It's Mary whose job it is to make the coffee" - That is one of her roles. It's not necessarily her primary reason for being there.

For questions in general, “it” is used. The following are unusual:
* “Whose job is to make coffee?”
* “Who are the people whose role is to catch criminals?”
* “Whose role is to fix pipes?”

 

[vgv8]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****
*****
ELIZabeth (pause) it is a pleasure to teach!!! In other words,
Elizabeth (as the professor said) is the first thing that comes to
your mind. See how it differs from the three other ways that are
given above.

*****

A very qualified teacher of English has just told me that she
"always" uses a sentence such as:
A journalist is a person whose job it is to report the news.

Do teachers (and reporters) write or just talk (in their use of English)?

This still sounds to me to be specific to an oral talk or literary tricks to convey oral mumbling in writing.

I am still not sure is it proper to insert (this redundant) "it" into such cases/patterns into technical or scientific articles

 

[lauralie2]

I am still not sure is it proper to insert (this redundant) "it" into such cases/patterns into technical or scientific articles

Using 'it' is standard English; omitting it is a new development. You've misunderstood the issue.

 

[AlJapone]

I am grateful to TheParser for providing us, learners of the English language, with an interesting piece of information. However, the argument reminds me of the egg or chicken dilemma, somehow. I mean, which comes first, emotion or language? Not a very easy question, to say the least.

Raymott, after reading your second post, I am feeling unsure whether or not I correctly understood what you wrote in your first post. I am afraid that I sense some discrepancy between your two posts.
Below are some excerpts from Raymott's posts, #2 and #8. I have edited the excerpts slightly. So, please read the original posts for exactness.

2. "It is the job of this person to make the coffee"
[In the sentence #2,] it appears that that is the person's (...) only job.

1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee."
[The sentence #1,] however, merely point out whose job something is.

"It's Mary's job to make the coffee." = "It's Mary whose job it is to make the coffee" - That is one of her roles. It's not necessarily her primary reason for being there.

Hi, vgv8.
A few days ago, surfing the web, I came across an article of The New York Times in which the two constructions that we discuss here were used by one writer; it struck me strange and I thought there had to be something more than style issue. Anyway, I am glad I am not the only one to have found this whole thing somewhat perplexing, or maybe, rather interesting.

Best wishes,


AlJapone

 

[vgv8]

Using 'it' is standard English; omitting it is a new development. You've misunderstood the issue.

Do you mean that adding "it" just immediately after a subject (or a noun), repeating and substituting it, is standard English?

 

[lauralie2]

Do you mean that adding "it" just immediately after a subject (or a noun), repeating and substituting it, is standard English?

I don't understand what you mean. 'It' is not added. Why would it be added?

 

[Raymott]

Raymott, after reading your second post, I am feeling unsure whether or not I correctly understood what you wrote in your first post. I am afraid that I sense some discrepancy between your two posts.
Below are some excerpts from Raymott's posts, #2 and #8. I have edited the excerpts slightly. So, please read the original posts for exactness
==========================
2. "It is the job of this person to make the coffee"
[In the sentence #2,] it appears that that is the person's (...) only job.
1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee."
[The sentence #1,] however, merely point out whose job something is.

"It's Mary's job to make the coffee." = "It's Mary whose job it is to make the coffee" - That is one of her roles. It's not necessarily her primary reason for being there.
=======================

This is as difficult to explain as it is for you to understand. You'll note that even the writer in Lauralie's link to Teacher-stumpers sounds a bit unsure, and no doubt that's why it's addressed on a site called Teacher stumpers!

OK, to my apparent equivocation:
There's actually no contradiction in what I said, except that in my first post, I hadn't quite understood your question. I think full example sentences are useful in questions (and answers), instead of, or as well as, trying to describe the sentence.
My latter post is the answer to your question.

You’ll see that in my first post, I was contrasting:
1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee." and
2. "It is the job of this person to make the coffee"


whereas in my last post, I was contrasting:
1. "This is the person whose job it is to make the coffee." (same as 1 above) and
2. "This is the person whose job is to make the coffee." which I now take to be your question.

However, in both cases, sentence 2 tends to give the impression that it’s the person’s primary or only job.

Is that any clearer? Perhaps I shouldn't have attempted the first post before understanding your question better.

 

[TheParser]

Do you mean that adding "it" just immediately after a subject (or a noun), repeating and substituting it, is standard English?

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Vgv,


(1) I have been thinking about this all night. Here are some thoughts

from an ordinary learner for your consideration:

A reporter is a person. His/her job is to report the news.

Combine into one sentence:

A reporter is a person whose (= his/her) job is to report the news.

A reporter is a person. It is his/her job to report the news.

Combine into one sentence:

A reporter is a person it is whose (= his/her) job to report the news.
("Bad" English because native speakers will not tolerate "whose" in that position. They require it to be moved forward.)

A reporter is a person whose job it is to report the news.
(Now we have "good" English.)

*****

As the teachers have told us learners, maybe it is often a

choice. Your style. And as I think Professor Quirk might

point out, the "it" sentence seems to emphasize "whose

job" a little more strongly.


THANK YOU

 

[AlJapone]

Is that any clearer? Perhaps I shouldn't have attempted the first post before understanding your question better.

It was my fault. Nobody could understand it for I had wrote my first post based on completely wrong premises. Lauralie2 saved me.

Yes, thank you. it is clear now.
According to my understanding, the gist of your explanation is that with the expletive it serving as "a new starting point", the latter part functions rather non-restrictively whereas these words, "whose [noun] is," strongly stick together and give us an impression that the latter part is the main part. Am I wrong?

(What I misunderstood is the meaning of the "equal sign". probably it signified the possibility of conversion instead of the equality of implication.)

TheParser, I guess I had overlooked the most important part of your first post. It inspired me after rereading it. Thank you very much.