# whose business it is to screen out troublesome



## Yang

Hi~

In this sentence, "Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.

Why there's an it after business????

Shouldn't it be "whose business is to screen out...".

What's this it used for?


----------



## Eddie

Hi, Yang.

Because the verb is requires a subject, which in this case is it.


----------



## Yang

Eddie said:
			
		

> Hi, Yang.
> 
> Because the verb is requires a subject, which in this case is it.


 
Thanks, Eddie.  

But isn't "whose business" the subject of "is to screen out..."  
That's why the is bothers me so much...> <"

If the it is the subject of is, then how to explain the "whose business"?

Eddie, my English is not good, especially not good at writing.
Hope you can understand what I wrote.


----------



## Eddie

I understand you perfectly, Yang. Your English is excellent. Unfortunately, you've picked some examples of English syntax that are not easy to explain.

_It is the business of policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others to screen out troublesome individuals._ Notice the word it at the beginning of the sentence. In actuality, the verb is has 2 subjects. It is one of them.


----------



## Eddie

Let's simplify all this. Here are three sentences which are identical in meaning.

It is his job to open the door to visitors.
His job is to open the door to visitors.
There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.

In all three sentences it and his job are the subjects of the verb.


----------



## panjandrum

Yang said:
			
		

> [...]What's this it used for?


 Good question Yang 
I wish I knew the answer. I have written sentences like this. I have no idea why the "it" is there.
*Eddie:* Good to see a simpler example - that helps to clarify my confusion 
I am still not certain why there has to be an "it".

What is wrong with:
There is someone whose job is to open the door to visitors.

My job is to open the door to visitors.
Why isn't "There is someone whose" the equivalent of "My"?


----------



## Eddie

Thanks for reminding me, Pan. I added that sentence to the list.


----------



## Yang

Eddie said:
			
		

> I you've picked some examples of English syntax that are not easy to explain.


 
Though I couldn't understand these kind of complex sentences,
I still love them, I think the writers' writing skill are good. 

Thank you for your kind and patient explanation.


----------



## foxfirebrand

What we have here is an adjectival clause modifying "others," where the linking word "whose" modifies the subject of the subordinate clause "job." Structurally, "job" is the subject of a _subjective complement_ clause with compound complements, "it" and "to screen out."

I can parse this better if I boil down (list of occupations) + (and others) to "others."

We had difficulty with *others.* (main clause)
Whose job was it (and was) to screen out. (adjectival clause)

We (subj) had (verb) difficulty (dir obj) with others (prep phrase modifying "difficulty")

whose (rel pronoun linking to subj)

Job (subj) was (verb) it (1st subj complement) to screen out (2nd subj comp)

The inversion of _it_ and _was_ is to make the two complements apposite, rather than clustering them as you would in a parsing like the above.  You put the connecting verb between them.

The redundancy is idiomatic, and is there for emphasis-- or most often *overemphasis*, i.e. to imply that the thing being identified as something else is more or less than.

"What is your business" implies a simple question _for_ information.
"What business is it of yours" implies a complex question _for and about_ information.

If you ask a question for and about, and then supply the _for_, you create a redudancy that cancels out the "for and about," leaving the focus on the question _about_ the information.

What business is it of yours _to screen me out._" Answers the question about what your business is, implying the yet-unanswered question about whether the business is properly _yours. _

Parsed logically rather than structurally: There is business, there is business of yours, there is the business of screening out. "What business is it of yours" means, of the business that is, does your portion _really_ include that portion that is the business of screening out.


----------



## Yang

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *Eddie:* Good to see a simpler example - that helps to clarify my confusion


 
Me too.  

In Chinese, we say 感恩, which means thank you very much indeed or I thank you from the bottom of my heart.


----------



## panjandrum

Interesting, but I still ask: what is the difference between:

There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.

There is someone whose job is to open the door to visitors.

...and is only one of them correct?


----------



## foxfirebrand

Both are correct, but both aren't the _same._ 

If the job is opening doors, the meanings are damn close.  But if the job is _screening out,_ the second sentence carries a slight implication that the position is self-appointed.  "I make it my business to," rather than "it's my job to."

I guess that could apply to door-openers, if they jump into your life uninvited like windshield-squeegiers-- and then demand payment.

The second structure is a little baroque compared to the first, and when such elaboration occurs in AE the intention is often ironic or parodic.  "It is my Calling in life to open your every door."


----------



## panjandrum

Still interesting.
Still not convinced there is a difference 
In all the sentences below, the (it) can safely be removed without change of meaning.
There is someone whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.
I am someone whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.
I am the one whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.

My job (it) is to open the door to visitors. You can't say that with the "it"!
It is my job to open the door to visitors.


----------



## Yang

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> What we have here is an adjectival clause modifying "others," where the linking word "whose" modifies the subject of the subordinate clause "job." Structurally, "job" is the subject of a _subjective complement_ clause with compound complements, "it" and "to screen out."
> 
> I can parse this better if I boil down (list of occupations) + (and others) to "others."
> 
> We had difficulty with *others.* (main clause)
> Whose job was it (and was) to screen out. (adjectival clause)
> 
> We (subj) had (verb) difficulty (dir obj) with others (prep phrase modifying "difficulty")
> 
> whose (rel pronoun linking to subj)
> 
> Job (subj) was (verb) it (1st subj complement) to screen out (2nd subj comp)
> 
> The inversion of _it_ and _was_ is to make the two complements apposite, rather than clustering them as you would in a parsing like the above. You put the connecting verb between them.
> 
> The redundancy is idiomatic, and is there for emphasis-- or most often *overemphasis*, i.e. to imply that the thing being identified as something else is more or less than.
> 
> "What is your business" implies a simple question _for_ information.
> "What business is it of yours" implies a complex question _for and about_ information.
> 
> If you ask a question for and about, and then supply the _for_, you create a redudancy that cancels out the "for and about," leaving the focus on the question _about_ the information.
> 
> What business is it of yours _to screen me out._" Answers the question about what your business is, implying the yet-unanswered question about whether the business is properly _yours. _
> 
> Parsed logically rather than structurally: There is business, there is business of yours, there is the business of screening out. "What business is it of yours" means, of the business that is, does your portion _really_ include that portion that is the business of screening out.


 
Thank you very much, foxfirebrand.  感激不盡(which means the same as 
感恩.)




> Interesting, but I still ask: what is the difference between:
> 
> There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.
> 
> There is someone whose job is to open the door to visitors.


 

That's my question, too. 




> Both are correct, but both aren't the _same._
> 
> If the job is opening doors, the meanings are damn close. But if the job is _screening out,_ *the second sentence carries a slight implication that the position is self-appointed. "I make it my business to," rather than "it's my job to."*


So it is...感激不盡!


----------



## Yang

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Still interesting.
> Still not convinced there is a difference
> In all the sentences below, the (it) can safely be removed without change of meaning.
> There is someone whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.
> I am someone whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.
> I am the one whose job (it) is to open the door to visitors.
> 
> My job (it) is to open the door to visitors. You can't say that with the "it"!
> It is my job to open the door to visitors.


 
 It seems reasonable ...now I'm confused again... 

Wait! foxfirebrand just wrote:
If the job is opening doors, the meanings are damn close. But if the job is _screening out,_ the second sentence carries a slight implication that the position is self-appointed. "I make it my business to," rather than "it's my job to."


So *There is someone whose job is to screen out troublesome individuals* means this person doing it because he wants to do it.(He may not being paid to screen out troublesome individuals, that's not his responsibility.)


And *There is someone whose job it is to screen out troublesome individuals* means this person doing it because that's his job, his duty, and he is responsible for that.

Is that right?...No, no...It doesn't make sense...

Whether a job is to open the door or to screen out troublesome individuals are both paid! Both jobs get the salary and have the duty...So what I think doesn't work.

...Wait. The context is "Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness."

Now I guess I know what foxfirebrand means:
when these policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others are screening out someone suspect, they do it because that's their job and duty, not personal choice.

But the doormen open the door also because that's their job and duty...


----------



## Eddie

> There is someone whose job is to open the door to visitors.


I'm sorry. I have to disagree. This is not normal English syntax. No matter how much you overanalyze it, the word it must be used.


----------



## panjandrum

I haven't let this one go yet - well, really, it hasn't let ME go yet - and by the way I am not suggesting that the "it" is not necessary. I am trying to find out WHY it is necessary 

I don't have the explanation, not being a grammarian, but I know what it should look like without the it Here is the simple sentence:

There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.

There is someone whose job is to open opening the door to visitors.

Here is the topic question:

Then there were [...] whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.

Then there were [...] whose business it is to screen *is screening* out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.


----------



## Eddie

Hi, Pan.

Although I used your example, my comments weren't addressed to you but to previous posters who thought the sentence was "correct".

Before we wrestle with your new sentences, take a look at some variations of the original sentence:

-*Do you know whose book this is?*

The word _this_ serves the same purpose as _it_ in the problematic sentence. Would you leave out _this_? I know you'll argue that the original sentence was longer; but length is not the issue. The issue is syntax.

As for your new sentence, I would say that with the present participle, the pronoun isn't necessary. Here's another example.

-*Do you know whose book is laying on the table?*

You see, Pan; even if I gave you a whole page of grammatical explanations with a bunch of fancy grammatical terms that most people wouldn't understand, that wouldn't guarantee you'd walk away satisfied.

I imagine in everyday speech, leaving out the pronoun in sentences of the first type would probably be a second option... nothing to get upset over.


----------



## Gooney

His job is to open the door to visitors.
Underlying question: What's his job? Emphasis on _to open the door to visitors_.

It is his job to open the door to visitors.
Underlying question: Whose job is it? Emphasis on _his_.

Then there were [...] whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.
It is describing whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.

Then there were [...] whose business is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.
It is describing the business of the policmen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Gooney said:
			
		

> His job is to open the door to visitors.
> Underlying question: What's his job? Emphasis on _to open the door to visitors_.
> 
> It is his job to open the door to visitors.
> Underlying question: Whose job is it? Emphasis on _his_.
> 
> Then there were [...] whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.
> It is describing whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.
> 
> Then there were [...] whose business is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.
> It is describing the business of the policmen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others.


 
Excellent point!

By the way Panj, I hate to be so disagreeable, but the catchphrase "your mission, should you choose to accept it, is..." is followed by the infinitive.  Works for me, and for _job_ as well.

I'm not saying your style isn't fine, even superior in its way-- but is it punchy enough for American TV?


----------



## panjandrum

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> By the way Panj, I hate to be so disagreeable, but the catchphrase "your mission, should you choose to accept it, is..." is followed by the infinitive. Works for me, and for _job_ as well.


Works for me too - but irrelevant - different construction.


> I'm not saying your style isn't fine, even superior in its way


Hmm - that's enormously generous of you. But of course, none of the above is my style I am simply searching for the reason for "it". 
So far, no simple explanation has appeared.


> -- but is it punchy enough for American TV?


God forbid!! If my style ever becomes "punchy enough for American TV" you may take me away, lock me up and throw away the key; for I will clearly have become permanently deranged

Gooney: Interesting examples - the difference between the first two is clear. Unfortunately, the difference between the second two is much less clear. I flirted with that idea for a while, but there are clearly those around who take the view, strongly, that only the first of these - with "..whose job it is..." is grammatically correct.
Neither would be punchy.......


----------



## Gooney

Hi panjandrum,

With the "it", I get the feeling that the author is almost saying

"Yeah, as if it is THEIR business!"

But I am probably reading too much into it. Other than that, I have to admit that I find the difference rather superficial. It might help if I know what "standard unpleasantries" the author is referring to. 

I am absolutely clueless as to whether the sentence would be grammatically correct without the "it". It seems okay, but I don't know much about grammar.  I find it too long to be punchy though.


----------



## LV4-26

Note that you can say
_Mr Smith is the man whose house is on the hill_ 
But you could never say
_Mr Smith is the man whose house *it *is on the hill_ 

So there must be something to this peculiar construction (probably something to do with the fact that it is followed by a nominalized infinitive)
_whose job it is to..._
which makes the "it" correct and (maybe) even desirable.


----------



## foxfirebrand

There's nothing wrong with "the man whose house it is," though "on the hill" is a complete nonsequitur. Any modifying phrase has to make sense with the _terms_ in the sentence-- by which I mean words not as parts of speech but as terms in a logical premise. A sentence has a grammatical blueprint (form) and a rhetorical structure (content) as well. In a good sentence the grammatical and rhetorical are in harmony, support each other, and are not conspicuously separate things.

The sentence we've had under consideration, lo these lebenty-odd posts, may not answer to that description.

With that in mind, and a forewarning that I've changed _it_ to _this_ for stylistic reasons beyond my control:

"Look, it's not our fault your belongings got trashed with the house. Your landlord should've given you an eviction notice."

"I'm still suing-- I checked with the City, and you were supposed to demolish a building twenty blocks east of here. This is _East_ Pierremont Road."

"Oh no! But the work order clearly says _West!_"

"You can fight City Hall over that. Meanwhile I mean to be compensated, and _you're_ the people who trashed my state-of-the-art Pond Life Habitat. And if you think a million bucks is a lot for an aquarium, wait till you get a load of what the guy whose house this is has in mind!"

Yes, the prose is a little purple, and I should've said "the guy whose house this _was._"


----------



## Yang

Gooney said:
			
		

> Hi panjandrum,
> 
> With the "it", I get the feeling that the author is almost saying
> 
> "Yeah, as if it is THEIR business!"
> 
> But I am probably reading too much into it. Other than that, I have to admit that I find the difference rather superficial. *It might help if I know what "standard unpleasantries" the author is referring to.*
> 
> I am absolutely clueless as to whether the sentence would be grammatically correct without the "it". It seems okay, but I don't know much about grammar.  I find it too long to be punchy though.


 
The author, Brent Staples, is a black man. The sentence I asked comes form his essay, "Black Men and Public Space", in which he describes how he became aware of the effect of his presence as a black male on others in public. And he learns that his being a black male is perceived as a danger to others. 

Here are some more passages:
A. In that first year, my first away from my hometown, I was to become thoroughly familiar with the language of fear. At dark, shadowy intersections, I could cross in front of a car stopped at a traffic light and elicit the _thunk, thunk, thunk, thunk _of the driver--black, white, male, or female--hammering down the door locks. On less traveled streets after dark, I grew accustomed to but never comfortable with people crossing to the other side of the street rather than pass(why is not passing ?) me. *Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness. *

b.The fearsomeness mistakenly attributed to me in public places often has a perilous flavor. The most frightening of these confusions occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I worked as a journalist in Chicago. One day, rushing into the office of a magazine I was writing for with a deadline story in hand, I was mistaken for a burglar. The office manager called security and, with an ad hoc posse, pursued me through the labyrinthine halls, nearly to my editor's door. I had no way of proving who I was. I could only move briskly toward the company of someone who knew me.


----------



## Gooney

I might've forced my brain to accept that only one of the following two sentences is correct:

A. Mr. Smith is the man whose job it is to open the doors to visitors.
B. Mr. Smith is the man whose job is to open the doors to visitors.

A is correct because it's saying that Mr. Smith is the person that opens the door. B is wrong because its relative clause is describing Mr. Smith's job, but he might not be the only one with this job, so he cannot be "the man."

I am not sure if my brain is working.  Any confirmation or refutation would be much appreciated.



			
				Yang said:
			
		

> The author, Brent Staples, is a black man. [...]


Now foxfirebrand's post is making sense to me.  I agree with him on the effect of the "it" in this case.   By the way, why is _before_ italicized?  It is not in the original post.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> [...] carries a slight implication that the position is self-appointed [...]
> 
> [...] the intention is often ironic or parodic [...]


----------



## Yang

Gooney said:
			
		

> Now foxfirebrand's post is making sense to me. I agree with him on the effect of the "it" in this case. *By the way, why is before italicized? It is not in the original post.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Actually, the four _thunks _and_ before_ are italicized in the book, but I didn't type them in italics at first.  I thought it's not important.


----------



## panjandrum

Yang said:
			
		

> Actually, the four _thunks _and_ before_ are italicized in the book, but I didn't type them in italics at first. I thought it's not important.


Probably important to the writer  but irrelevant to this question, I am sure.

I wonder - in the original sentence, what does the pronoun "it" stand in place of?
That must be a trivial question, but my brain is cotton wool at the moment.


----------



## Yang

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Probably important to the writer but irrelevant to this question, I am sure.
> 
> *I wonder - in the original sentence, what does the pronoun "it" stand in place of?*
> That must be a trivial question, but my brain is cotton wool at the moment.


panjandrum, you're always asking the questions that I've wondered too. 

But until now, I've been studying hard(sweat) and trying to understand all this thread thoroughly. It's not easy when one's English is not good enough.

However, it's such a satisfaction (I mean happiness) to get to learn the answer.


----------



## Aupick

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I wonder - in the original sentence, what does the pronoun "it" stand in place of?
> That must be a trivial question, but my brain is cotton wool at the moment.


'It' stands for 'to screen out troublesome individuals'.

It is often used to anticipate the 'true' subject of a sentence, if this subject is a lengthy phrase. For example, you could say:
Replying quickly is important.
where 'replying quickly' is the subject, but we tend to say
It is important to reply quickly.
where 'it' just kind of means 'hold on a minute, don't go away, the subject is coming right up'.

So here we have a sentence along the lines of 
Screening out troublesome individuals is his business.
which is reformulated into
It is his business to screen out troublesome individuals.
and since the 'his' is replaced by the relative pronoun 'whose', the word order becomes:
whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals.


----------



## Aupick

And while I'm at it, I may as well throw in my two cents to this thread that I've been following for a day or two:

The difference between the two versions of the sentence in the first post is that the version with 'it' is an _extraposed_ version of the other sentence. Extraposition is a stylistic device that draws the reader's (or listener's) attention to the part of the sentence you want. In this sentence, for example:
Spending one's time quibbling over grammar is good for the soul.
the audience might hear 'quibbling over grammar' and think yadayadayada, who cares? But if you begin the sentence like this:
It is good for the soul to spend one's time quibbling over grammar.
you grab people's attention and make them sit up in their chairs, so that by the time you hit them with 'quibbling over grammar', they're yours, and they'll start pitching in with their questions about extraposition and the like.

The problem is, in the original sentence, the value of the extraposition is entirely lost, because the relative pronoun 'whose' _has_ to begin the clause and relegates the anticipatory 'it' to third place where it doesn't have any time to build up suspense.

That's my take on it, anyway.


----------



## foxfirebrand

As I explained in that fairly thorny grammar-parsing post way back up the page, _it_ and _screening out_ are compound subjective complements of the subject in the subordinate clause, namely _job._ 

_It_ doesn't "stand for" something in the sense of _mean_ something.  You're asking what _it_ means, when all you need to figure out is how _it_ functions in the sentence.  It is _apposite_ "to screen out alienated black protagonists," so it doesn't "stand for" as much as it "stands with."

Redundancy for emphasis is involved here, and as I said, for something more like _conspicuousness._  Why is *it* _your_ business to screen me out-- is the unasked question.  Is there any doubt the person this is all about has asked this questions?  Hence the "standard unpleasantries."  

"It is ordained that..." is a similar bit of idiomatic redundancy for the sake of emphasis.  Usually the "thou shalt not" clause that follows contains a verb that carries the idea of authoritarian ordination.  So the statement is apposite _it,_ with the same seeming pointlessness that seems to have become a burr under the proverbial saddle blanket for so many of us.  And the horses it was our unfortunate fate to ride in on.


----------



## panjandrum

Useful information, acknowledged, thanks 

I am almost convinced that in this case the "it" is not empty, not a prop, and therefore must be standing in place of something.
Information now being fed into the brain.  Result may follow - eventually.


----------



## LV4-26

Excuse me for dropping in again as a non native. (I reckon you could very well tell me : "Leave that to the people whose job it is, will you ? "  ). But this is just a question to see if I've got your various explanations right.

Didn't Aupick give a clear, simple and accurate answer to Yang's initial question, in post #30 ? 

To put things as simply as possible, couldn't we say that
_others whose business is to screen out_... comes from (or is to be connected to)
_their business is to screen out....._

while
_others whose business* it* is to screen out_..... comes from
_*it* is their business to screen out....._
?
The two sentences in red italics are very similar in meaning but there's just a shift of emphasis (as some of you have already mentionned). Which results in the same shift of emphasis in the sentences in black italics.

Don't get mad if you think this was already made clear a long time ago : I'm slow...


----------



## Yang

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Don't get mad if you think this was already made clear a long time ago : I'm slow...


No, you are not slow to me. 
I'm even not slow, I'm late. 
Being late to understand. (How can one take so much time and need so many various explanations that he finally get to understand a sentence!?)

It was my first time to see such syntax when I read the article, all I had known is syntax like "whose job is to, whose name is...ect", and then, I thought, "What?! Whose business it is to... what a sentence is this? It must be printed wrong." So, I took a red pen and draw a X on this very _it._ And wrote a note aside, " Wrong printed." ......>//////<

I've studied this thread for several times:
First, looking over the entire thread for two or three times.

Then, looking up the dictionaries, looking up the dictionaries, looking up...God, so many words that I don't know(sweat).

And, figuring out the difficult sentences (not the sentence that I asked, but the answering posts). Some have great rhetorical skills. There are some sentences I've still not perfectly understood.

Finally, it's time to read and study in detail.

At the begaining, the "whose job is to, whose name is" is the right and only right syntax deeply in my mind and could not be moved. When I finished the steps as above, the idea finally gets clear. It is as what you said: 



> Didn't Aupick give a clear, simple and accurate answer to Yang's initial question, in post #30 ?
> 
> To put things as simply as possible, couldn't we say that
> _others whose business is to screen out_... comes from (or is to be connected to)
> _their business is to screen out....._
> 
> while
> _others whose business* it* is to screen out_..... comes from
> _*it* is their business to screen out....._
> ?
> The two sentences in red italics are very similar in meaning but there's just a shift of emphasis (as some of you have already mentionned). Which results in the same shift of emphasis in the sentences in black italics.


 
And as what Aupick had written:



> 'It' stands for 'to screen out troublesome individuals'.
> 
> It is often used to anticipate the 'true' subject of a sentence, if this subject is a lengthy phrase. For example, you could say:
> Replying quickly is important.
> where 'replying quickly' is the subject, but we tend to say
> It is important to reply quickly.
> where 'it' just kind of means 'hold on a minute, don't go away, the subject is coming right up'.
> 
> So here we have a sentence along the lines of
> Screening out troublesome individuals is his business.
> which is reformulated into
> It is his business to screen out troublesome individuals.
> and since the 'his' is replaced by the relative pronoun 'whose', the word order becomes:
> whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals.


 
And the explanation is also just as what foxfirebrand had written in a different and more grammatical way (actually, grammar can truely help a lot to non-natives).

And then, I found that actually Eddie had given the answer at the very begining. It's just I could not (was uncapable to) understand while my head was full of "whose job is to...". Also because of my poor English.




> Let's simplify all this. Here are three sentences which are identical in meaning.
> 
> It is his job to open the door to visitors.
> His job is to open the door to visitors.
> There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.
> 
> In all three sentences it and his job are the subjects of the verb.



Now I finally know that the difference between the two sentences is what is emphasized. It's just a rhetorical pattern(?or skill?) to let you put the emphasis on whay you want.



> Redundancy for emphasis is involved here, and as I said, for something more like _conspicuousness._


 


> The difference between the two versions of the sentence in the first post is that the version with 'it' is an _extraposed_ version of the other sentence. Extraposition is a stylistic device that draws the reader's (or listener's) attention to the part of the sentence you want. In this sentence, for example:
> Spending one's time quibbling over grammar is good for the soul.
> the audience might hear 'quibbling over grammar' and think yadayadayada, who cares? But if you begin the sentence like this:
> It is good for the soul to spend one's time quibbling over grammar.
> you grab people's attention and make them sit up in their chairs, so that by the time you hit them with 'quibbling over grammar', they're yours, and they'll start pitching in with their questions about extraposition and the like.
> 
> The problem is, in the original sentence, the value of the extraposition is entirely lost, because the relative pronoun 'whose' _has_ to begin the clause and relegates the anticipatory 'it' to third place where it doesn't have any time to build up suspense.


 
Though study is not easy, it could also be very funny and had a fun:


> God forbid!! If my style ever becomes "punchy enough for American TV" *you may take me away, lock me up* *and throw away the key*; for I will clearly have become permanently deranged


 
Thank you all, the word-loved people!

Now, I am going to bed and have a nice and sweet sleep. 

Good day and Good evening and Good afternoon to all people in this forum.
And of course, Good morning.


----------



## panjandrum

I have picked away at this sentence over the past couple of days trying to pin down different kinds of concerns and different nuances of meaning. As I sit here this morning, snuffling, coughing, and not at work, I think I have managed at last to distill a resolved understanding from all the really helpful input to date.​

*Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.*

 The eureka moment, for me, came when I paid attention, at last, to the punctuation 
Let me set out the sentence a little differently: 
*Then there were the standard unpleasantries with *
*policemen, *
*doormen, *
*bouncers, *
*cabdrivers, and *
*others whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.* 

Now it is clear that the part of the sentence I am struggling with is a modifier for others. 
What kind of others? What is their "business”? 
“Others” business is screening out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.

But Mr Staples is not interested in explaining what “others” do, he is interested in them only for the role they play. 
So, in order to place more emphasis on “business” instead of being a simple modifier for “others”, turn this into a cleft sentence. 
It is the business of “others” to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness.

Grafting this modifier into the sentence beginning: 
*Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers, and others … *
Mr Staples added 
*… **whose business it is to screen out troublesome individuals before there is any nastiness. *

 So, the “it” is a “cleft it”

Apologies to all contributors who are no doubt spluttering incoherently something along the lines of "but isn't that exactly what I said at post #nn four days ago!!!!"


----------



## foxfirebrand

Panj, I'm not sure I understand why the "it" is giving you so much trouble.

Are you trying to cut "others" from the herd of other occupations "whose business it is?"  Seems like it.  The "others" is just an etcetera at the end of the list, right?  A "whoever else" that includes cops, bartenders-- people who screen out, or more to the point, who make *it* their business...take it upon themselves, and so forth.

The implication is that they're not justified or authorized in making this "screening-out" their business-- that's why the word _job_ isn't used.

What they're doing is called "profiling" nowadays-- look at the giveaway clue at the end of the sentence, where they "screen out troublesome individuals _*before *there is any nastiness."_

How's that again?  If this is being done prior to any "nastiness"-- what are the criteria for screening out "troublesome" individuals?  You have to see what a world of difference there is between the _unpleasantries_ which occur in reaction to being screened out-- and the _nastiness_ which in fact does not occur, and is being prevented by preemptive, officious, and possibly unjust, action.

The "it" is a rhetorical device, doubling the subjective complement so as to make the presumptuousness of preemptiveness conspicuous, and place this "screening out" under scrutiny.  I went way out on a tangent about this earlier, as I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone-- but I'm more convinced than ever about my conclusions, now that I notice that last phrase in the quote.

Eventually we learn that the resentful preemptively screened-out individual is black-- and the ironic "whose business it is" device helps underscore the message that black = troublesome when it comes to defining the criteria for barring certain individuals from whatever event the narrator was excluded from.


----------



## panjandrum

No "it" problems, all resolved 
The point of the eureka moment is only that it provoked a shift in how I read the sentence. Having got through that point, I am content that the "whose business...." _could_ be taken as referring to all of the preceding, including the policemen, doormen, bouncers and cabdrivers - although the punctuation would suggest otherwise. 

If I had written this, and meant the "whose business..." to apply to all of them, I would have placed the comma differently and written:
*Then there were the standard unpleasantries with policemen, doormen, bouncers, cabdrivers and others, whose business...*

I feel nothing in the text that suggests the writer implies these individuals are officious or over-zealous, any more than normal - it is the casual nature of their "unpleasantries" that makes the impact.

And of course we know from the beginning of the essay that he is black - in fact, the point he is making here relates to the development of _*his*_ awareness of what _*we*_ know already, the impact his blackness has on others. Contributing to his surprise is that in this town, people/roles with whom he might have exchanged "pleasantries" in his hometown are, instead, expressing "unpleasantries".

Hrrmmm.. I feel this shifting further and further off-topic into literary criticism - where I will find myself even further out of my depth


----------



## Yang

Eddie said:
			
		

> _*There is someone whose job is to open the door to visitors.*_
> 
> I'm sorry. I have to disagree. This is not normal English syntax. No matter how much you overanalyze it, the word it must be used.


 


> I don't have the explanation, not being a grammarian, but I know what it should look like without the it Here is the simple sentence:
> 
> There is someone whose job it is to open the door to visitors.
> 
> There is someone whose job is to open opening the door to visitors.


 
It's kind of embarrassing to ask what I am going to ask,
that is why the _it_ is essential and why _whose job is to open the door _is wrong? Why should it be_ whose job is *opening *the door? _
*And what's the difference between is to and is opeing ?* 

I've thought of whether it's appropriate to ask further,
because it seems the thread should have been ended.
But I couldn't help thinking what's the answers and why?

After studying this thread, the following description is my understanding.
If I am wrong, please! Correct me. 

1. I know Tom.
2. Tom's job is to open the door.
1+2= I know Tom whose job is to open the door.

3. I know Tom.
4. Opening the door is Tom's job.
5. It is Tom's job to open the door.
3+4+5= I know Tom whose job it is to open the door.

Is my understanding correct? Is it right?
And what's the difference when you say *whose job is to open the door* and *whose job is opening the door?*
Or is _whose job *is to *open the door _wrong syntax?

Please feel free to correct me severely.  




> Hrrmmm.. I feel this shifting further and further off-topic into literary criticism.


To me, anything expresses by words is literature.
What differs are the style and the taste for words.
So the way you discuss the questions is perfect to me and can help people understood better the question he asks.
But that's only my personal point of view.


----------



## foxfirebrand

"My job is to fight crime." This is correct, but note that it comes across as a statement of purpose, a declaration of one's role in life.  _"This is my Quest, to follow that star..."_

"My job is fighting crime." This is correct, but my ear balks at it a little. It seems to answer the nonsensical question, "what is your job doing?" Hi Eddie, I don't see your job around. Oh, it's off fighting crime.

"Crimefighting is my job." Also correct, and doesn't lend itself to a facetious interpretation.

"My job is to open the door." Correct, but is door-opening really a calling? The boldly-declarative mood and the menial content don't go comfortably together. This is why the infinitive sounded wrong to some people, possibly.

"My job is opening the door." Correct, but same problem as #2 above-- yike, I forgot to number them!

"Opening the door is my job." Correct, and as far as I'm concerned we've arrived at the best overall statement, on the level of style. Strict grammatical correctness was never the problem, for those offering objections.

If you want to make a more formal or declarative statement, say "I am a doorman. You godda _problem_ widdat?"


----------



## Gooney

Yang said:
			
		

> 1. I know Tom.
> 2. Tom's job is to open the door.
> 1+2= I know Tom, whose job is to open the door.



This is unrelated to your question, but the sentence is wrong without a comma separating the main sentence and the relative clause. 

Without a comma, the relative clause is an essential part in describing the noun it modifies, whereas with a comma it simply gives additional information about the noun being modified.

*I've known Tom, whose job is to open the door, since I moved here.*

Tom is a specific person. Tom will still be Tom regardless of whether you know his job is to open the door. You can safely remove the relative clause without introducing any ambiguity regarding who Tom is.

*I know the man whose job it is to open the door.*

There is no comma because the relative clause gives an essential information. Without the clause, nobody would know which man I am talking about.



			
				yang said:
			
		

> It's kind of embarrassing to ask what I am going to ask,
> that is why the _it_ is essential and why _whose job is to open the door _is wrong?



That makes us two embarrassed fellows here in the forum.  I was trying to figure out the same thing with my confusing posts earlier in the thread.


----------



## Yang

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> If you want to make a more formal or declarative statement, say "I am a doorman. You godda _problem_ widdat?"


 
Actually, I haven't read them in detail of every sentence.
(Again, so many words needed to look up in the dictionaries.)
But I can't wait to reply, because it makes me laughing.
Yeah! I can't help laughing. 
The way you answered is so interesting, so funny, so...I don't know how to express in English.
To be brief, I read it with delight(?).

Thank you for so many good examples and explanations.


----------



## Yang

Gooney said:
			
		

> This is unrelated to your question, but the sentence is wrong without a comma separating the main sentence and the relative clause.
> 
> Without a comma, the relative clause is an essential part in describing the noun it modifies, whereas with a comma it simply gives additional information about the noun being modified.


Thank you Gooney. 
That helps to clarify my grammar.



> *I've known Tom, whose job is to open the door, since I moved here.
> 
> Tom is a specific person. Tom will still be Tom regardless of whether you know his job is to open the door. You can safely remove the relative clause without introducing any ambiguity regarding who Tom is.
> 
> I know the man whose job it is to open the door.
> 
> There is no comma because the relative clause gives an essential information. Without the clause, nobody would know which man I am talking about.
> *


 
I see. 



> *That makes us two embarrassed fellows here in the forum*.  I was trying to figure out the same thing with my confusing posts earlier in the thread.


I have no idea why it makes me laughing.
I think it's cute and kind (and makes me feel not so embarrassed). 
But that's impossible!
You can't be the one that ever being confused!



> With the "it", I get the feeling that the author is almost saying
> 
> "Yeah, as if it is THEIR business!"


You see!
How vivid and accurate you portrays the meaning of it in that sentence.
When I finally more or less understood the sentence, and back to see what
you had written, "Yeah, as if it is THEIR business!" It seems that I could see Brent Staples' face and felt his feeling when he wrote this sentence.

By the way, it occurs to me that which word to describe some kind of feeling--that is *eureka*! I learned it from panjandrum's post.


----------



## gaer

Eddie said:
			
		

> -*Do you know whose book is laying on the table?*


Eddie, shouldn't this be:

-*Do you know whose book is lying on the table?*

I am lying in bed, the book is lying on the table. I am laying it on the table.

lie, lay, lain
lay, lay, laid

Thes have always been problem for me, in German also!

Do you know whose job it is put the book on the table?   

EDIT: fascinating discussion. You all have brought up a problem I did not even know existed. I've learned a lot, but I pity anyone trying to figure this all out who is not a native English speaker!

Gaer


----------



## Yang

gaer said:
			
		

> EDIT: fascinating discussion. You all have brought up a problem I did not even know existed. I've learned a lot, *but I pity anyone trying to figure this all out who is not a native English speaker!*
> 
> Gaer


You bet! 
You can say that again! 
I couldn't agree more. 
.
.
.etc.

But, it's a worthy try.


----------

