Printable View
From The TimesQuote:
Meet the woman whose job it is to worry about absolutely everything
Isn't it in the subordinate clause superfluous here? I've been studying English for a while but I have never met such an odd (as it sounds to me) usage. Google says it's rather common though.
In American English, we drop this 'it'.Quote:
Originally Posted by longing4sky
It's perfectly natural. "... whose job is ..." would of course also be grammatically correct, but it would have a subtly different meaning, or at least a subtly different style. The trouble is that in this case, the difference is so subtle as to be almost meaningless, but I'll take a stab at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by longing4sky
"Meet the woman whose job is to... " explains what the woman's job is, it is a straighforward literal description, wheras "Meet the woman whose job it is to... " shifts the focus slightly to the task and gives her responsibility for it, but the task itself can be more figurative. The woman's job is not literally to worry about everything, that's a rhetorical device, so in this case the latter strucure is used.
I'm happy to admit that I'm not even certain whether or not this distinction does exist the way I have explained, or whether or not this example implies a more general rule, or whether I am just subconciously trying to rationalise why "... whose job it is to ..." sounds more natural to me in this context, but either way it does sound more natural.
So basically like yeah don't worry about it!
I agree with scotcher. I'm a native American. I think I could not have come up with a better explanation, slippery as the distinction may be.
Really? Which tribe?Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika
Жжёшь!
Thank you all, especially scotcher for his subconscious explanation :)
TATY, плюс один!
I am Chippewa.
Так точно!Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY