[General] it was not, in reality, so distant

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Hi,

What does the boldfaced pronoun it refer to in the following extract from Frankenstein?

This appearance excited our unqualified wonder. We were, as we believed, many hundred miles from any land; but this apparition seemed to denote that it was not, in reality, so distant as we had supposed. Shut in, however, by ice, it was impossible to follow his track, which we had observed with the greatest attention.


​

I'd appreciate your help.

 

[Raymott]

"It" refers to the distance from land, or simply 'land'.
We believed we were many hundred miles from land, but ... land, in reality, was not so distant.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

"It" refers to the distance from land, or simply 'land'.
We believed we were many hundred miles from land, but ... land, in reality, was not so distant.

The original has "any land." Do you find the use of it to refer to "land" to the exclusion of "any" odd in current English?

 

[Raymott]

"Any" doesn't make any/a difference. If you're a long way from any land, you're a long way from land, and vice versa.
The "land" that "it" refers to is "any land" at all, which is land.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

"Any" doesn't make any/a difference. If you're a long way from any land, you're a long way from land, and vice versa.
The "land" that "it" refers to is "any land" at all, which is land.

I'm wondering whether that use, i.e. reference to "any land" to the exclusion of "any," is also valid in in the varieties of English spoken in the 21st century.
Consider the following:

A: Do you have any water in the bottle?
B: * Yes, I have it.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm wondering whether that use, i.e. reference to "any land" to the exclusion of "any," is also valid in in the varieties of English spoken in the 21st century.
Consider the following:

A: Do you have any water in the bottle?
B: * Yes, I have some.

Or: Yes, I do. Yes, I have plenty. Yes, I have a little.

We use any all the time. It's not outdated.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

We use any all the time. It's not outdated.

The issue is whether the pronoun "it" can refer to a head noun in a "any+Noun" combination excluding the "any."
Why is that possible in Shelley's sentence but not in the two-sentence dialogue?

Consider a more parallel expression:
:
"We thought we were far from any water, but the humidity showed it was closer than we thought."

In current English, is the sentence more likely expressed as, "We thought we were far from any water, but the humidity showed there was some closer than we thought"?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't fully understand what's troubling you here. What do you mean by "to the exclusion of any"?

Why is that possible in Shelley's sentence but not in the two-sentence dialogue?

Because in Shelley's sentence, the voice is thinking of, and referring to, a particular piece of land, which is what turned out to be the closest piece of land.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I don't fully understand what's troubling you here. What do you mean by "to the exclusion of any"?

By "to the exclusion of 'any,'" I mean "without 'any," when the head noun is modified by "any."
As Raymott indicated in post #2, "It" refers to the distance from land, or simply 'land'.

Because in Shelley's sentence, the voice is thinking of, and referring to, a particular piece of land, which is what turned out to be the closest piece of land.

If a particular piece of land had been meant, why wouldn't she have used "the" or "a piece of"?
If I were in a nightclub looking for a particular man, I'd say to the person working the door, "I'm looknig for a man," not "I'm looking for any man."

 

[jutfrank]

If a particular piece of land had been meant, why wouldn't she have used "the" or "a piece of"?

You mean instead of any land?

When he says "miles from any land", he's not referring to a particular piece of land, but when he says it, he obviously is. He's referring to the piece of land on which they saw the apparition.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

You mean instead of any land?

When he says "miles from any land", he's not referring to a particular piece of land, but when he says it, he obviously is. He's referring to the piece of land on which they saw the apparition.

But the same reasoning does not work for "A: Do you have any water? B: Yes, I have it."
Consider this parallel: When A says "any water," he's not referring to parricular water, but when B says it, he obviously is. He's referring to the water A asks about .

Note: Robert Walton was not referring to the piece of land on which he had seen the apparition. The apparation had supposedly been moving on the ice.

 

[jutfrank]

But the same reasoning does not work for "A: Do you have any water? B: Yes, I have it."

Well, you could at least try apply that reasoning here, yes. But remember that this is not real use of language—you've deliberately made it up to be problematic, so there's really no point in trying to do that, or in trying to analyse it in any way. Without any context, this exchange appears incoherent.

Consider this parallel: When A says "any water," he's not referring to parricular water, but when B says it, he obviously is. He's referring to the water A asks about .

What are you trying to consider exactly? I suggest you discard this example. See my comment above.

Note: Robert Walton was not referring to the piece of land on which he had seen the apparition. The apparation had supposedly been moving on the ice.

Yes, he was referring to the piece of land. Why do you think he wasn't? What do you think it refers to then, if not land?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Well, you could at least try apply that reasoning here, yes. But remember that this is not real use of language—you've deliberately made it up to be problematic, so there's really no point in trying to do that, or in trying to analyse it in any way. Without any context, this exchange appears incoherent.

Linguists, especially formal syntacticians, do regularly make up examples to test claims about language. And it's easy to come up with a context for that dialogue. E.g., A might be thirsty after having been hiking for hours.

Yes, he was referring to the piece of land. Why do you think he wasn't? What do you think it refers to then, if not land?

Some people say "it" refers to "land" (without the "any"). But anyway, as an aside, I was saying Walton apparently saw Frankenstein's monster traveling on the ice, not the land, as suggesed by the following extract. All Walton could see in the surroundings at about two o'clock was plains of ice, when he and his sailors suddenly noticed the monster.

About two o'clock the mist cleared away, and we beheld, stretched out in every direction, vast and irregular plains of ice, which seemed to have no end . . . when a strange sight suddenly attracted our attention and diverted our solicitude from our own situation . . . Soon after this he inquired if I thought that the breaking up of the ice had destroyed the other sledge. I replied that I could not answer with any degree of certainty, for the ice had not broken until near midnight, and the traveller might have arrived at a place of safety before that time; but of this I could not judge.

 

[jutfrank]

Some people say "it" refers to "land" (without the "any").

Only some people? Well, what do others say? Are you trying to suggest that you don't think it refers to land?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Only some people? Well, what do others say? Are you trying to suggest that you don't think it refers to land?

Reference to land is the most likely interpretation, although an American called Peter T. Daniels, an expert in writing systems, claims it refers to the apparition. And an Australian named Peter Moylan went so far as to say Shelley got it wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

Peter T. Daniels, an expert in writing systems, claims it refers to the apparition.

That's the only other possibility, yes. However, look at the previous sentence:

We were, as we believed, many hundred miles from any land; but this apparition seemed to denote that it was not, in reality, so distant as we had supposed.

Note the parallelism. Don't you think that makes it obvious?

What's the reasoning behind thinking that the reference is to the apparition? How is it they supposed the apparition was more distant than it was? Did they already know about it before they saw it? Could you explain how this interpretation makes sense?

And an Australian named Peter Moylan went so far as to say Shelley got it wrong.

Got what wrong exactly?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I am inclined to say "it" refers to "land" because Robert Walton knew that the apparition was that of a male, and he used the pronoun "his" to refer to the monster in the surrounding text.

Got what wrong exactly?

He thinks Shelley was wrong to use "it" in reference to "any land."

 

[jutfrank]

He thinks Shelley was wrong to use "it" in reference to "any land."

I wouldn't call it wrong but it is a bit clumsy, I think.

The NP any land is indefinite, whereas the reference it is definite. It's not entirely usual to make reference between definite and indefinite NPs like that.

Anyway, we can't blame Shelley—it was Walton who said it.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

The four letters preceding Chapter One of Frankenstein contain a number of sentences which are awkward by contemporary standards. I don't know if that's deliberate, because Walton is described as "more illiterate than many schoolboys of fifteen."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't fully understand what's troubling you here. What do you mean by "to the exclusion of any"? . . .

Yes. Raymond used that expression in another thread, and I didn't understand what it meant then, either.