# nowadays it is not worth knitting



## siares

Hello all,
I read some threads on 'worth' and want to ask about this construction, but with a verb taking no object


velisarius said:


> You could say "It's worth making your own fireworks - you can have fun and save a lot of money"


- Why are you getting rid of books with knitting patterns?
-_ It's not worth knitting nowadays_. I used them during communism when there was nothing in the shops, but now all styles are available cheaply, they yarn is on the other hand expensive, and that waste of time..

I keep seeing the initial 'it' as referring to something rather than being dummy, as in
_That pattern will be out of style tomorrow - it is not worth knitting._

Thank you.


----------



## Retired-teacher

I think the "it" is referring to "anything" or when negated "nothing". The sentence could be rephrased as "Nothing is worth knitting nowadays".


----------



## e2efour

The construction is like _My watch is broken. It _[the watch] _is not worth repairing.
_
But the -_ing_ form can refer to a process or activity:
_It's not worth knitting nowadays, _meaning _knitting is not worth doing/worthwhile._


----------



## siares

Thanks, Retired-teacher and e2efour!


----------



## Hildy1

Some people would say "not worth while" (or written as one word, "worthwhile"), because "worth" seems to call for a noun or pronoun after it.
- _It's not worth while knitting nowadays.
_
Or they might use e2efour's version:
_- Knitting is not worth doing/worthwhile nowadays._


----------



## Linkway

siares said:


> I keep seeing the initial 'it' as referring to something rather than being dummy, as in
> _That pattern will be out of style tomorrow - it is not worth knitting._



I would still regard that as a "dummy" or notional "it";  the "it" does *NOT *refer to "that pattern".

"It is not worth knitting" is a general statement about knitting and whether it is worthwhile or not.

The above use is akin to:

_It's going to rain today.

It's surprising that Jack was promoted to general manager.

It's very late; I'm going to bed._


----------



## Loob

I agree with Linkway: the "it" in


siares said:


> Why are you getting rid of books with knitting patterns?
> -_ It's not worth knitting nowadays_.


is a dummy subject.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Hildy1, Linkway, Loob!
Is there maybe an AmE / BrE divide? See the green sentences.
(Alternatively, the verb used makes a difference: transitive/intransitive, in gerund or in infinitive..)


Hildy1 said:


> "worth" seems to call for a noun or pronoun after it.


For easy reference I copy Forero's sentences below with marks, as I guessed them from his original post. BE speakers especially, would you please have a look to see if you agree with the marks, and the interpretations? Those attached to sentences marked  are very interesting.
Forero:
_1a)It's not worth crying about an ex.It (something mentioned outside of this sentence) is not important enough to risk (the bother of) crying about an ex.
1b)It's not worth to cry about an ex. It is not the value in order to cry about an ex.

2a)It's not worth it crying about an ex.Crying about an ex is not worth the bother.
2b)It's not worth it to cry about an ex. as above
3a)It's not worthwhile crying about an ex.Crying about an ex is not worth the time and energy.
3b)It's not worthwhile to cry about an ex.as above

from:


Forero said:



...
Worthwhile is close in meaning to worth it:

It's not worth it crying about an ex. = Crying about an ex is not worth it. = Crying about an ex is not worth the bother.
It's not worthwhile crying about an ex. = Crying about an ex is not worthwhile. = Crying about an ex is not worth the time and energy.

In the above sentences, "crying" can be replaced by "to cry", but "crying" is a little more concrete (like something actually being done) than "to cry" (like something that might be done).

This sentence does not say anything like what the above say:

It's not worth crying about an ex. = It (something mentioned outside of this sentence) is not important enough to risk (the bother of) crying about an ex.

This sentence is very strange:

It's not worthy crying about an ex. = It (something mentioned outside of this sentence) is not deserving when it cries about an ex.

And this sentence is even stranger:

It's not worth to cry about an ex. = It is not the value in order to cry about an ex.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Loob

Sorry, siares, I suspect I would need to read the whole of the thread you're quoting from in post 8 in order to understand the point you're making.

All I can say is that I think there's unlikely to be a BrE/AmE difference over the use of dummy pronouns.


----------



## siares

Loob said:


> All I can say is that I think there's unlikely to be a BrE/AmE difference over the *use of dummy pronouns*.


Thanks Loob. There is just one relevant post in that thread, Forero's. He's saying the 'it' in this construction is NOT a dummy pronoun:


Forero said:


> _It's not worth crying about an ex._ = It (something mentioned outside of this sentence) is not important enough to risk (the bother of) crying about an ex.



(Although that could be because of difference in verbs as I said.)


----------



## Loob

I've read the thread.
Forero's not saying that the "it" in _It's not worth crying about an ex _is not a dummy pronoun. He's saying that it's possible to construct a context in which it wouldn't be dummy pronoun.
I don't dissent.


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, Loob!
Sorry, Forero, for misinterpreting you!


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> I've read the thread.
> Forero's not saying that the "it" in _It's not worth crying about an ex _is not a dummy pronoun. He's saying that it's possible to construct a context in which it wouldn't be dummy pronoun.
> I don't dissent.


Actually I am saying that this _it_ is not a dummy pronoun:

_It's not worth crying about an ex.
It's not worth knitting nowadays_.

To me, _it_ in these two sentences has to have an antecedent. Something is not worth crying about an ex, and something is not worth knitting nowadays.


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, Forero.
(I disagree.)


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> I'm sorry I misunderstood you, Forero.
> (I disagree.)


Are you saying that the real subject of "It's not worth knitting nowadays" could be "knitting nowadays"?

For that to be the real subject, the sentence would have to mean the same as "Knitting nowadays is not worth", or maybe "Nowadays knitting is not worth."

For me, that would have to be "worth" = "value": "Knitting nowadays is not value" / "Nowadays knitting is not value", unusual things to say.

Is that what you mean?



e2efour said:


> The construction is like _My watch is broken. It _[the watch] _is not worth repairing.
> _
> But the -_ing_ form can refer to a process or activity:
> _It's not worth knitting nowadays, _meaning _knitting is not worth doing/worthwhile._


I am not familiar with this usage. For me, "worth it", but not "worth" by itself, can mean "worth doing", "worth your while", or "worthwhile".





Retired-teacher said:


> I think the "it" is referring to "anything" or when negated "nothing". The sentence could be rephrased as "Nothing is worth knitting nowadays".


This seems utterly bizarre to me.

Would "It's not worth crying about an ex" then mean "Nothing is worth crying about an ex" (in some sense)? How strange!


----------



## Loob

Forero said:


> Are you saying that the real subject of "It's not worth knitting nowadays" could be "knitting nowadays"?


Yes, more or less - I'd say the logical subject is "knitting", rather than "knitting nowadays". Certainly, though, if you put "knitting" in subject position, you have to do something with the "worth":
_Knitting isn't worthwhile nowadays.
Knitting isn't worth it nowadays.
Knitting isn't worth the effort nowadays._
etc


----------



## VicNicSor

_It’s not worth killing yourself over it. (Longman Dictionary)

It's not worth getting into a lather over. (CALD)_

Interesting, in Longman's example, the it is dummy, in Cambridge's one, it's the real subject.


----------



## Loob

Nice illustration of the difference, Vic!


----------



## Tofail




----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> Nice illustration of the difference, Vic!


Thank you


----------



## siares

I'm glad you came, Forero!


VicNicSor said:


> _It’s not worth killing yourself over it. (Longman Dictionary)_
> _It__'s not worth getting into a lather __over__. (CALD)_


Interesting, there are no ngrams for either of: _it isn't worth_ _thinking about it _/ _worrying about it_ /_ reading it_, and low numbers of google results, compared to the version without the second 'it'.



Loob said:


> I'd say the logical subject is "knitting", rather than "knitting nowadays". Certainly, though, if you put "knitting" in subject position, you have to do something with the "worth"


That is interesting, so it is a strange kind of adjective, if it cannot be put into predicate o its own!
*worth* /wɜːθ/adj (governing a noun with prepositional force) worthy of; meriting or justifying: it's not worth discussing (Collins)

What is 'governing a noun with prepositional force', please?


----------



## Loob

It's what Hildy said in post 5, siares:


Hildy1 said:


> "worth" seems to call for a noun or pronoun after it.


It _is_ rather a strange beast.


----------



## siares

Thank you Loob.
I made up a sentence where I will the first 'it' to first act as pronoun, and then as a dummy it.
_This strange book! It is both boring and worth reading it._


----------



## Loob

Sorry, that doesn't work, siares.... But I think you knew that!


----------



## VicNicSor

siares said:


> _This strange book! It is both boring and worth reading it._


Just remove the wrong "it", you know which one


----------



## RM1(SS)

Forero said:


> Are you saying that the real subject of "It's not worth knitting nowadays" could be "knitting nowadays"?
> 
> For that to be the real subject, the sentence would have to mean the same as "Knitting nowadays is not worth", or maybe "Nowadays knitting is not worth."
> 
> For me, that would have to be "worth" = "value": "Knitting nowadays is not value" / "Nowadays knitting is not value", unusual things to say.


For me, that sentence means "Knitting is not worth [doing] nowadays.


----------



## Forero

RM1(SS) said:


> For me, that sentence means "Knitting is not worth [doing] nowadays.


I am surprised. I would have to insert at least another _it_ to make it have that meaning.

Do your brackets mean the word _doing_ can simply be omitted without harming the meaning?

As another example, do "It's not worth going" and "Going is not worth" both make sense to you and mean the same as "Going is not worth doing"?


----------



## RM1(SS)

The brackets indicate a word not in the original sentence which was inserted to clarify the meaning of the sentence.

"It's not worth going."  If I meant the journey wasn't worth the trouble, I would say "It's not worth it, going/to go."  If I meant the destination, I would say "It's not worth going to."

If I said "Going is not worth," it would mean that I had been interrupted before finishing my sentence.


----------



## Forero

RM1(SS) said:


> The brackets indicate a word not in the original sentence which was inserted to clarify the meaning of the sentence.
> 
> "It's not worth going."  If I meant the journey wasn't worth the trouble, I would say "It's not worth it, going/to go."  If I meant the destination, I would say "It's not worth going to."
> 
> If I said "Going is not worth," it would mean that I had been interrupted before finishing my sentence.


For the same reason, as far as I can tell, if I meant the act or practice of knitting was not worth the trouble, I would say "It's not worth it to knit" or "Knitting is not worth it". I would only say "It's not worth knitting" to refer to some item not worth knitting.

Do you really feel compelled to insert another "it" in "It's not worth it, going", but not in "It's not worth knitting"?


----------



## Loob

Forero, maybe it would be useful to look at another example for a moment.

How do you feel about:
_It's not worth talking to Fred - he never listens._
?

That has an impersonal "it", and it sounds perfectly natural to me.  Does it sound awkward to you?


----------



## siares

When the dictionary says that 'worth' *governs a noun*; in 'it's not worth gerund object', the gerund object sounds much more like participle to me than like a noun, what do you think? I'll write them with your/you - please give a better example if you think of one, I based the following on: _He's not worth your time_.
(Obviously this is completely different to the knitting - that one is 'universally' not worth it and I think 'knitting is not worth your time' would sound strange?)

Noun
_He's not worth your* time.* _= The cost of time spent is higher than he deserves / he doesn't deserve your time
_He's not worth your *spending time on*._ = Eh...weird. But the structure is analogous to '_It's not worth arguing about_'.
_He's not worth __your_ *spending time on him. *= Spending time on him costs you more than he is worth. / He doesn't deserve your time spent on him.
_It's not worth your *spending time on him.*_ There's no use / value  in you spending time on him (he may or may not be worth it or deserve it, we don't know)

Participle
_He's not worth you *spending time.*
He's not worth you *spending time on. *
He's not worth you* spending time on him. *
It's not worth you *spending time on him.*_

(Back to gerund possessive!)
Thank you.


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> Forero, maybe it would be useful to look at another example for a moment.
> 
> How do you feel about:
> _It's not worth talking to Fred - he never listens._
> ?
> 
> That has an impersonal "it", and it sounds perfectly natural to me.  Does it sound awkward to you?


I don't have a problem with the syntax, but to me this "it" is not the dummy one. To me, the sentence means that "it" (whatever it is) is not worth (the trouble of) talking to Fred, since he never listens.

To me, "to be worth" means something like "to be at least as valuable as" / "to have a value at least as great as (that of)", and "worth it" (but not "worth" by itself) means "worth the trouble" / "worth the bother" / "worth doing".

Something not worth something else is something for which that somethng else is too high a price. If that something else has only been mentioned as "it", that "it" means the price, i.e. the bother, the trouble, the pain, etc., associated with whatever the first something is.

For me, the something else is a complement to the adjective _worth_, and cannot be entirely omitted. Without a complement, _worth_ becomes a noun.

A dummy "it" is appropriate in subject position when the subject of "be worth" (the first something) is a "to" or "for ... to" infinitive delayed until after that complement (e.g. "It's not worth it to talk to Fred", "It's not worth the risk to have to talk to Fred").

A gerund subject might be delayed the same way, using a dummy "it", but I still expect a complement after the adjective _worth_, just as I do when the subject is in subject position:

_Talking to Fred is not worth it.
It's not worth it talking to Fred.
_


----------



## Loob

Forero said:


> I don't have a problem with the syntax, but to me this "it" is not the dummy one. To me, the sentence means that "it" (whatever it is) is not worth (the trouble of) talking to Fred, since he never listens.


Then there is a definite difference between your usage and mine, Forero.

It doesn't seem to be an AmE/BrE difference, since RM1 is happy with impersonal "it is worth".   Maybe there are regional variations in usage....

--------------

PS to siares regarding post 31.  I don't agree with your gerund/participle distinction after "worth", I'm afraid.  And yes, I think your post 31 _is_ about the old chestnut of "gerund + possessive" - or rather, "possessive + gerund".


----------



## siares

Thanks, Vik, RM1(SS), Tofail, Forero and Loob.
One last question is on N-grams; are the constructions
_dummy it + worth + transitive gerund + object_ pronoun equally as idiomatic in speech as _subject_ _pronoun + worth + gerund?
- Oh that Jack...
- It's not worth worrying about him. / He's not worth worrying about._

Zero results for _is not worth thinking/worrying about me/you/he/she/it/us/them - _zero is at least bit surprising, no?

Unless...there is some difference in emphasis between:
_It's not worth crying over spilt milk. / Spilt milk is not worth crying over.
It's not worth knitting. / Kniting is not worth it._

Is there a difference in emphasis?
Thank you.


----------



## Loob

There may well be a difference in emphasis, siares, though I'm finding it hard to get my brain around it.

I would say that _It's not worth worrying about him_ and _He's not worth worrying about  _are equally idiomatic - it's just that you would use them in slightly different situations....

And before you ask: no, I can't think of situations in which I would use one rather than the other


----------



## siares

OK, thank you, and please come back if you do! Or the others.
Thans again all, I enjoyed myself!


----------



## PaulQ

It's not worth it = the effort/cost of it is unjustified by the result/value to be extracted

"I'm not paying £10 for that coffee - it's not worth it. -> The cost of the coffee is unjustified by the value to be extracted

_It's not worth worrying about him_ -> the effort of worrying about him is unjustified by the result to be extracted.

_Talking to Fred is not worth it. -> _the effort of talking to Fred is is unjustified by the value to be extracted
_
It's not worth it talking to Fred.  -> _It's not worth it - talking to Fred.

_He's not worth your* time.*->_ The effort expended on him is unjustified by the result to be extracted.


----------



## siares

PaulQ said:


> _He's not worth your* time.*->_ The effort expended on him is unjustified by the result to be extracted.


So, you are saying, the interpretation of all the sentences above is always the same whatever the noun/participle after worth is. Or are you?
_He's not worth your time.
He's not worth your smiling.
He's not worth your jumping off a cliff.
He's not worth any knitting (yours or anybody else's)
_
I keep switching between - X is not useful / he's not deserving of X reading.

Can you think of some examples for question in 34?
Thank you.


----------



## Linkway

I've reread what I wrote in #6 and wish to revise what I said - basically because I now read the original sentence a bit differently.

If there is a contextual antecedent, and the "it" could be replaced by the full noun or noun-phrase without changing the meaning, the "it" is just a normal pronoun used to avoid unnecessary repetition of the noun or noun phrase, especially as this is usually poor style.

_This knitting pattern is useless because no one would want to be seen wearing that pullover.  _*It's not worth knitting.  *(ie *That pullover* is not worth knitting; other pullovers and other garments might be worth knitting.) 
In the above, "it" is an ordinary use of a preposition used to refer to the pullover. - here, "it" is NOT a so-called dummy preposition.

_Tom:  I'm so poor since I lost my job.  I think I might start *knitting *things to save money.  _(ie "knitting" as the general activity of making garments by the process of knitting.)
_Jack:  No, Tom, don't waste your time and money!  *It's not worth knitting *(anything at all) these days (because (eg) the wool/yarn is so expensive, knitting a garment takes a lot of time, and the result is never as good as professionally made garments)._
In this example, the "It" in "It's not worth knitting" is a so-called dummy preposition.  No specific garment or pattern (etc) has been mentioned, "things" is plural, so this use of "it" can only be as a "dummy".


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> So, you are saying, the interpretation of all the sentences above is always the same whatever the noun/participle after worth is.


Yes.

"It's not worth it" is not quite an idiom but the two *it*s have different meanings. As the sentence is only said after context, the interpretation of the referents of both *it*s becomes obvious.

The construction hangs around the phrasal verb "to be worth" - at its simplest "X is worth Y". This is not a problem where X is a concrete object and Y is expressed in units of currency. 

However, where X is a concept or a complex idea, the understanding of Y, which is now "it" can be explained as I suggest.


PaulQ said:


> It's not worth it = the effort/cost of it is unjustified by the result/value to be extracted


Obviously, this is a formula and you need to adapt it to the circumstances.


----------



## siares

OK, got it, thanks, PaulQ.

Thanks, Linkway.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> When the dictionary says that 'worth' *governs a noun*; in 'it's not worth gerund object', the gerund object sounds much more like participle to me than like a noun, what do you think? I'll write them with your/you - please give a better example if you think of one, I based the following on: _He's not worth your time_.
> (Obviously this is completely different to the knitting - that one is 'universally' not worth it and I think 'knitting is not worth your time' would sound strange?)


"Knitting is not worth your time" does not sound strange.





> Noun
> _He's not worth your* time.* _= The cost of time spent is higher than he deserves / he doesn't deserve your time
> _He's not worth your *spending time on*._ = Eh...weird. But the structure is analogous to '_It's not worth arguing about_'.


The structure of this last example (like a relative clause with no relative pronoun) is common in English, but I find it rather hard to explain. Other examples: "This thread is not good for sewing with", "This plastic is not ready for hammering on", "This plastic anvil is not hard enough for hammering on"





> _He's not worth __your_ *spending time on him. *= Spending time on him costs you more than he is worth. / He doesn't deserve your time spent on him.


This one is a little strange. It seems to be missing something, just as "This plastic anvil is hard for hammering on" is missing "enough".





> _It's not worth your *spending time on him.*_ There's no use / value  in you spending time on him (he may or may not be worth it or deserve it, we don't know)*.*


This is the structure we disagree on. For me, "not worth" by itself does not mean "(of) no use".





> Participle
> _He's not worth you *spending time.*
> He's not worth you *spending time on. *
> He's not worth you* spending time on him. *
> It's not worth you *spending time on him.*_
> 
> (Back to gerund possessive!)
> Thank you.


These _-ing_ words are still gerunds, with _you_ as subject, a colloquial alternative to formal "your".

Something seems to be missing here too. Better examples would be "He's not worth you(r) having to waste your time" and "He's not worth you(r) wasting your time on."


----------



## siares

Thanks, Forero, I understood from above where the usage differs. As you can tell, the structure sounds foreign to me without the second 'it', but for different reasons.


Forero said:


> The structure of this last example (like a relative clause with no relative pronoun) is common in English


I know the structure, but I think I never heard it with a pronoun/possessive before the gerund.
If the structure is possible in the examples above starting with a pronoun: _he's not worth possessive gerund_
is it also possible in
_dummy it + possessive + gerund? _..when not talking about something universally worth-unworth, but something which is person specific, are both following sentences possible?

_For me, it's not worth (it) knitting._ I don't really like it and my sister knits more than I could ever wear in a lifetime.
_It is not worth (it) my knitting._ I don't really like it and my sister knits more than I could ever wear in a lifetime.

Can you think of a difference in situations in which you would preferentially use:
_He's not worth it - wasting time on.
It's not worth it - wasting time on him._


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> Thanks, Forero, I understood from above where the usage differs. As you can tell, the structure sounds foreign to me without the second 'it', but for different reasons.
> I know the structure, but I think I never heard it with a pronoun/possessive before the gerund.
> If the structure is possible in the examples above starting with a pronoun: _he's not worth possessive gerund_
> is it also possible in
> _dummy it + possessive + gerund? _..when not talking about something universally worth-unworth, but something which is person specific, are both following sentences possible?
> 
> _For me, it's not worth (it) knitting._ I don't really like it and my sister knits more than I could ever wear in a lifetime.
> _It is not worth (it) my knitting._ I don't really like it and my sister knits more than I could ever wear in a lifetime.
> 
> Can you think of a difference in situations in which you would preferentially use:
> _He's not worth it - wasting time on.
> It's not worth it - wasting time on him._


I don't know what you are trying to ask. You have more _it_s here than I can make sense of.


----------



## Esca

I'm late to the party, but I agree with the BE speakers that "it's not worth knitting" means "knitting isn't worth it" and sounds right to me. I wouldn't personally use this construction, preferring the alternatives already mentioned, but there's nothing wrong with it in my book.
Apologies to my neighbor, Forero!


----------



## siares

Forero said:


> I don't know what you are trying to ask. You have more _it_s *here* than I can make sense of.


Thanks for checking. I don't know what you mean by here...just in the following:? I made a mistake here.


siares said:


> He's not worth *it* - wasting time on.



I'll rephrase the sentences, using the OP construction you yourself don't use, without the second it (_It is not worth gerund)._
My question is not about the difference in your usage and that of, for example Loob; but, about whether it is possible to use 'it is not worth (it) gerund' tailored to a specific case.

_For me personally, it's not worth knitting
It's not worth me / my knitting.
_
Thanks for joining, Esca.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> Thanks for checking. I don't know what you mean by here...just in the following:? I made a mistake here.
> 
> I'll rephrase the sentences, using the OP construction you yourself don't use, without the second it (_It is not worth gerund)._
> 
> My question is not about the difference in your usage and that of, for example Loob; but, about whether it is possible to use 'it is not worth (it) gerund' tailored to a specific case.
> 
> _For me personally, it's not worth knitting
> It's not worth me / my knitting.
> _
> Thanks for joining, Esca.


Are you asking whether a certain combination of words makes a sentence, or something about possible meanings of that combination of words?

What I don't use is "not worth" with the meaning "(of) no use" or "not worth the effort/trouble/bother/etc.". I do use "not worth" with the meaning "of too little value/use to be a fair exchange for", and these last two examples are good sentences with that meaning.





siares said:


> _He's not worth it - wasting time on._


This little sentence is awkward, but I can only read it with "wasting time on" being a reminder of what the speaker means by "it".

Others' use of "not worth" to mean "(of) no use" or "not worth the effort/trouble/bother/etc." is so foreign to me that I cannot say anything about what is possible with it, but I will say that "For me personally, it's no use knitting" makes sense, and "It's no use me knitting" might make sense, but "It's no use it - wasting time on" does not make sense.

Does that help?


----------



## siares

Forero said:


> Are you asking whether a certain combination of words makes a sentence, or something about possible meanings of that combination of words?


No, I wanted to know what combination of wortds would you or others choose to express that something is no use doing / not worth (it) doing for one specific person only, not generally.

Maybe this thread got too complicated and I ought to post a new one, because pronon/possessive + gerund is so new to me in this construction. This:


Forero said:


> "It's no use me knitting" might make sense


helps but I don't have that in active usage so will have to explore more.

Thank you for very interesting posts.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> No, I wanted to know what combination of wortds would you or others choose to express that something is no use doing / not worth (it) doing for one specific person only, not generally.
> 
> Maybe this thread got too complicated and I ought to post a new one, because pronon/possessive + gerund is so new to me in this construction. This:
> 
> helps but I don't have that in active usage so will have to explore more.
> 
> Thank you for very interesting posts.


_It's no use me knitting._ *awkward*
_It's no use my knitting._ *even more awkward*
_It's not worth it me knitting._* very awkward*
_It's not worth it my knitting._ *even more awkward
*
When you use a gerund as subject, its normal position is before the verb ("Me knitting is no use", "Me knitting is not worth it"). A gerund subject can be delayed by using a dummy _it_, but it makes for an awkward sentence when there is nothing after the gerund. (A longer subject might be delayed for the sake of balance.)

There are two problems with using _my_ with_ knitting_ in these constructions, due to the gerund becoming less "verbalized" (more like a noun):

It is very unusual to delay a noun subject by using a dummy _it_.
It creates ambiguity since _knitting_ can actually be a noun (possible meanings for _my knitting_: "thing or things I am knitting", "knitting as my hobby or as my chore").
And I suspect that "It's not worth my knitting" is so likely to mean that something is not worth being knit by me that, even in light of the expressed disagreement between English speakers, I would be surprised if anyone were to find this same sentence to mean "It's no use for me to do any knitting."


----------



## siares

Thanks Forero, your analysis makes it clear why the construction is awkward. I'm glad I asked the OP and the follow-up question, I've learned a lot.


----------

