# Mr Etches, isn't it?



## VicNicSor

A guy comes across someone who he knows:
-- *Mr Etches, isn't it?* You, er, taught me GCSE history, Mr Etches.
The Fades, TV series

Sounds odd to me, in this context. I'd expect something like that in a telephone conversation.
-- *It's *Mr. Etches, *isn't it*?

But face-to-face What do you think? Thanks.


----------



## Vronsky

Your name is Mr Etches, isn't it?


----------



## heypresto

It's fine, Vic.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> It's fine, Vic.


And, do you agree with Vronsky that "*it*" refers to the implied "*your name*"?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> And, do you agree with Vronsky that "*it*" refers to the implied "*your name*"?


 Originally it might have been, but I see it as a standard form/expression for such situations, and no-one thinks about what "it" actually refers to.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Originally it might have been, but I see it as a standard form/expression for such situations, and no-one thinks about what "it" actually refers to.


So what would the whole statement be: 
"*It's* Mr Etches, isn't it?" -- is that possible?

I just don't understand why it is not the expected "Mr Etches, *aren't you*?...


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> So what would the whole statement be:
> "*It's* Mr Etches, isn't it?" -- is that possible?
> 
> I just don't understand why it is not the expected "Mr Etches, *aren't you*?...


That might even be said, yes.

You can consider it an idiom if it's not what ypu expect.  This is how you learn them, by experience.  I expect the "it" form is considered less intrusive and more polite as an initial approach.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the replies!


----------



## Dale Texas

All of us at at a masked ball, expected to be there but our identities uncertain, perhaps being guessed at by body build or voice, or looking at old blurry pictures, again identities uncertain:

It's me, isn't it?

It's you, isn't it?

It's Mr. Etches, isn't it?


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you


----------



## Andygc

VicNicSor said:


> I just don't understand why it is not the expected "Mr Etches, *aren't you*?..


It's not "who are you? It's "have I remembered your name correctly?"


----------



## VicNicSor

Andygc said:


> It's not "who are you? It's "have I remembered your name correctly?"


I rather meant "You are Mr Etches, aren't you?" Wouldn't that be more common in such situations?...


----------



## heypresto

VicNicSor said:


> Wouldn't that be more common in such situations?...



Probably not.


----------



## VicNicSor

So as I understnad, opinions vary: some believe "it" is a dummy it, and others -- that "it" refers to the name...


----------



## heypresto

I go along with JulianStuart in post #5: "no-one thinks about what "it" actually refers to."


----------



## RM1(SS)

heypresto said:


> I go along with JulianStuart in post #5: "no-one thinks about what "it" actually refers to."


----------



## Andygc

"You are Mr Etches, aren't you?" Stress on "are". You think he is Mr Etches, but you need confirmation. 
"It is Mr Etches, isn't it?" You are pretty sure that it is, but just in case you are wrong you use a tag question.
In the context it's the second one, and the first one is inappropriate.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, everyobody.


heypresto said:


> I go along with JulianStuart in post #5: "no-one thinks about what "it" actually refers to."


Because everyone knows and always knew


Andygc said:


> "You are Mr Etches, aren't you?" Stress on "are". You think he is Mr Etches, but you need confirmation.
> "It is Mr Etches, isn't it?" You are pretty sure that it is, but just in case you are wrong you use a tag question.
> In the context it's the second one, and the first one is inappropriate.


Ah, you mean the 'it' is dummy, too, I thought you meant it refered to "your name".

"Inappropriate" because it sonds rude compared to "it is .... isn't it?"?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you, everyobody.
> 
> Because everyone knows and always knew


Nope It's unlikley that many people today think about it, let alone know what the set expression actually means word for word - so most people still don't know.  That's why it's a set expression.  Just like most people (may not be true of people who contribute to the forum) probably don't know the actual origin of the greetings Good morning and Goodbye, they just say them.


----------



## Andygc

VicNicSor said:


> "Inappropriate" because it sonds rude compared to "it is .... isn't it?"?


No. Just because it doesn't fit the context.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Nope It's unlikley that many people today think about it, let alone know what the set expression actually means word for word - so most people still don't know.  That's why it's a set expression.  Just like most people (may not be true of people who contribute to the forum) probably don't know the actual origin of the greetings Good morning and Goodbye, they just say them.


True, but you know when it's appropriate and when it is not. I don't


Andygc said:


> No. Just because it doesn't fit the context.


But why, could you explain please?
What's wrong about this:


Andygc said:


> "You are Mr Etches, aren't you?" Stress on "are". You think he is Mr Etches, but you need confirmation.


----------



## Andygc

He knows it is Mr Etches, as I explained.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> True, but you know when it's appropriate and when it is not. I don't


We learn set expressions just the same way non-native speakers _(by experience_) but we don't stop and anlyse them all to see if they fit expectations/rules etc.  We only have the advantage of being immersed in the language 

When I started learning German I had a lot of adjustments to make (verb at the end, agreement/genders of nouns, pronouns etc) so rules and structure were important.  Once I spent some time in Germany and became close to fluent, I picked up new expressions and put the effort into remembering them and when they were used and not into forcing them into a set of rules before I could remember them. Given all the exceptions/set expressions/nuances/rules/guidances/dialects etc in English, I would recommend trying to just _accept them and remember _them - trying to dissect them and categorize them and which rules they do and don't follow and have native speakers justify them etc is far more effort  That may just be a long way of saying "it's that way because that's the way it is in English"


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> We learn set expressions just the same way non-native speakers _(by experience_) but we don't stop and anlyse them all to see if they fit expectations/rules etc.  We only have the advantage of being immersed in the language
> 
> When I started learning German I had a lot of adjustments to make (verb at the end, agreement/genders of nouns, pronouns etc) so rules and structure were important.  Once I spent some time in Germany and became close to fluent, I picked up new expressions and put the effort into remembering them and when they were used and not into forcing them into a set of rules before I could remember them. Given all the exceptions/set expressions/nuances/rules/guidances/dialects etc in English, I would recommend trying to just _accept them and remember _them - trying to dissect them and categorize them and which rules they do and don't follow and have native speakers justify them etc is far more effort  That may just be a long way of saying "it's that way because that's the way it is in English"


Thank you for the advice ! It's just I can't restrain myself from analysing things. If I remember that "it's ... isn't it?" used is used in such situations but don't know what the it refers to, I'll feel uncomfortable until I know it (or think I know)


Andygc said:


> He knows it is Mr Etches, as I explained.


If I'm 100% sure, I use "It's X, isn't it?", if I'm less sure I use "You are X, aren't you?". And that's why in the first case are associate the name with the dummy IT, and in the second case -- with the person directly. I.e., "it" sound more certain... Is my understanding correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you for the advice ! It's just I can't restrain myself from analysing things. If I remember that "it's ... isn't it?" used is used in such situations but don't know what the it refers to, I'll feel uncomfortable until I know it (or think I know)


Sorry, I can't help such a syndrome  I suspect it slows down your learning, but then there's WRF although that is time-comsuming too.


----------



## siares

VicNicSor said:


> If I'm 100% sure, I use *"It's X, isn't it?"*, if I'm less sure I use "You are X, aren't you?".


I don't use the bolded one at all.
Is it usable if we're not talking about names, but roles?
You are meeting with several specialists: a parapsychologist, a witcher, a medium and you don't quite remember who's who. Can you say to one of them:
_It's the witcher, isn't it?_

Thank you.


----------



## heypresto

By not using the 'bolded one' you are denying yourself a useful and very common idiom.

Yes, I think you could also use it with roles.

(What's a witcher?)


----------



## siares

Thank you, heypresto.

The Witcher = a mutated monster killer in this book. Should be as famous as 'hobbit', the book is in many an opinion a masterpiece better than Lord of the Rings.


----------



## VicNicSor

And could someone please answer this my question?


VicNicSor said:


> If I'm 100% sure, I use "It's X, isn't it?", if I'm less sure I use "You are X, aren't you?". And that's why in the first case are associate the name with the dummy IT, and in the second case -- with the person directly. I.e., "it" sound more certain... Is my understanding correct?


Because I'm not sure I understand this point correctly.


----------



## Truffula

< Topic drift removed.  Cagey, moderator > 

To address siares's question about 'It's the (occupation), isn't it?' I don't think that sounds right to say *to the person*.  You could say "It's the witcher, isn't it?" if someone were knocking on the door and you thought the person at the door was Geralt (the witcher from the books/games). 

I think if you were saying it directly to the person you'd leave out the article.  So to the person sitting next to Geralt at this specialists' meeting, if I thought they were the parapsychologist, I could say "It's parapsychologist, isn't it?"   meaning,  "Your occupation is parapsychologist, right?"


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> If I'm 100% sure, I use "It's X, isn't it?", if I'm less sure I use "You are X, aren't you?". And that's why in the first case are associate the name with the dummy IT, and in the second case -- with the person directly. I.e., "it" sound more certain... Is my understanding correct?


To me the two forms are usually used in different contexts. "It's X, isn't it" is used when you know who the person is but you are unsure whether you have correctly remembered their name. "You are X, aren't you", while it could also be used in this context, is usually used to verify someone's identity. For example "it's Vicnicsor, isn't it (and not Vicsornic)". If we were meeting for the first time and you were as arranged standing under the clock wearing a red hat, I might say "You are Vicnicsor, aren't you (and not someone else)".


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> To me the two forms are usually used in different contexts. "It's X, isn't it" is used when you know who the person is but you are unsure whether you have correctly remembered their name. "You are X, aren't you", while it could also be used in this context, is usually used to verify someone's identity. For example "it's Vicnicsor, isn't it (and not Vicsornic)". If we were meeting for the first time and you were as arranged standing under the clock wearing a red hat, I might say "You are Vicnicsor, aren't you (and not someone else)".


That does make sense! But in the OP context, when a former student comes across his former teacher -- wouldn't the verify-identity option sound better?


----------



## siares

Truffula said:


> I think if you were saying it directly to the person you'd leave out the article.


Thank you very much, Truffula! Is it a parallel use article-free use to 'it's hard to be king'?

< Topic drift removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> That does make sense! But in the OP context, when a former student comes across his former teacher -- wouldn't the verify-identity option sound better?


It's hard to say - in this context the speaker might have doubts about identity, name, or both. I have teachers whose names I remember well and others I'm less sure of, and even when you're still at school it's sometimes difficult to recognise a teacher in a different environment.


----------



## Truffula

siares said:


> Thank you very much, Truffula! Is it a parallel use article-free use to 'it's hard to be king'?
> 
> < ---- >



Not sure what you mean by parallel usage, and not sure if it is or not, either.  I certainly wouldn't say "It's hard to be parapsychologist" so maybe not... I don't think I'd say "It's king, isn't it" either, I'd be more formal with even a suspected king 


< Topic drift removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## siares

Truffula said:


> Not sure what you mean by parallel usage, and not sure if it is or not, either.


It´s just that I can't recall ever hearing before of article-less countable nouns, except for by a coincidence yesterday when i posted a thread; but there they were in a different context, not direct speech:


Enquiring Mind said:


> In a canteen, you might *ask cook* (or _a cook_, or _the cook_) how long it took to make the dish you just ate, but you wouldn't *ask waitress *for another beer.


How about, in the canteen: _It's cook, isn't it?_


----------



## Glasguensis

siares said:


> How about, in the canteen: _It's cook, isn't it?_


No, that doesn't work. Note that your "ask cook" example is essentially using the countable noun as a name, but we wouldn't ever use it like this.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Glasguensis,


Glasguensis said:


> your "ask cook" example is essentially using the countable noun as a name, but we wouldn't ever use it like this.


Sorry, I don't get this, would you please explain using different words; what's the difference between


Truffula said:


> "*It's parapsychologist, isn't it?*" meaning, "Your occupation is parapsychologist, right?"


and my
*It's cook, isn't it?* in the canteen.

Thank you.


----------



## Packard

VicNicSor said:


> So what would the whole statement be:
> "*It's* Mr Etches, isn't it?" -- is that possible?
> 
> I just don't understand why it is not the expected "Mr Etches, *aren't you*?...



Different word; different meaning.
_
Mr. Etches, aren't you?_  (You are the person "Mr. Etches".  He is identifying who the person is.)

_Mr. Etches, isn't it?_  (I know who you are, I'm trying to remember your name."


----------



## VicNicSor

Packard said:


> Different word; different meaning.
> _
> Mr. Etches, aren't you?_  (You are the person "Mr. Etches".  He is identifying who the person is.)
> 
> _Mr. Etches, isn't it?_  (I know who you are, I'm trying to remember your name."


I see now that you, Andy and Glas are basically agreeing on the meaning, but could you tell me -- the thing which is still confusing me (which probably shouldn't be) -- is the "it" a dummy pronoun or does it imply "your name"?


----------



## Glasguensis

It certainly makes sense for it to be a substitute for "your name". Unfortunately it also makes sense for it to be a dummy "it": compare "Why, if it isn't Mr Etches!", which is clearly a dummy it. You might as well choose for yourself which explanation you like most.


----------



## Truffula

siares said:


> Thank you, Glasguensis,
> Sorry, I don't get this, would you please explain using different words; what's the difference between "It's parapsychologist, isn't it?" meaning, "Your occupation is parapsychologist, right?"
> and my
> *It's cook, isn't it?* in the canteen.
> 
> Thank you.



I suppose if you were confused which person in the canteen had the occupation of cook, and you knew one of them was, your "It's cook, isn't it?" would work. 

So maybe in this sort of context where Glasguensis, siares and I are having lunch in the canteen:

Truffula:  Look, at the next table, there's our friends, do you remember which of them works as a cook, which is a waitress and which practices parapsychology?
Glasguensis: I think the blond woman is the waitress.  
Siares: I think I remember who is the cook, let me ask her.  (walks over to the other table) Hi, we were just trying to remember over at the other table, Truffula, Glasguensis and I, what your occupations were.  I know you all told us the last time we chatted.  (Looking at the one he thinks is a cook)  It's cook, isn't it?  (Turning to look at the blond woman) And waitress, right?  (And looks at the third person) And you're the parapsychologist?


----------



## siares

Thank you very much Trufulla! I hope you'll allow me to treat you at the canteen.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the replies !


----------

