Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Antonio Marques <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20To=20waffle,=20=E2=80=98to=20waver,?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=20to=20vacillate,=20to=20equivocate,=20to=20dither=E2=80=99?=
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:49:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <v5c4ic$10h5s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <874jbqlz6d.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <889c5dbf100f389994b0045c982b3eb2@www.novabbs.com>
 <v0dtql$32vn5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0me1o$18rb8$1@dont-email.me>
 <dde345b58f5759830f2537ea1bd61367@www.novabbs.com>
 <v0qruj$2fvnq$1@dont-email.me>
 <a506b3df33f63e57031871da9da24d0b@www.novabbs.com>
 <v0u302$3aqh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msp8kbr3.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <a0f344f7f413f6e62dbf3c65ba0e1737@www.novabbs.com>
 <878qyubqar.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <9fea766cbbc374662852afbbd2fe511b@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:49:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1d89c202324538a66be09985e17a47b";
	logging-data="1066172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1888O4DzVO+iomXJBJPDKSxqNOqhPwYcURRINoFBROrvQ=="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ViqjLKag2wuIhKTI1+8P/iordsU=
	sha1:Co4UDgsONyWL3xuhJfpnTJC/S1s=
Bytes: 4344

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> 
> 
>> Ar an ceathrú lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh jerryfriedman: 
> 
>>> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Ar an chéad lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Antonio Marques:
>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly
>> inquire
>>>>>>>>> on what 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said
>> 'dither'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> The "it" there isn't idiomatic
>>> 
>>>>>>> The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure
>> why. As
>>>>>>> to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical?
>> I
>> don't
>>>>>>> quite see it.
>>>>>>>> "It" refers to "dither",
>>>>>> No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that
>> for the
>>>>>> last 30/40 years I may have been using a construct that
>> english
>>>>>> doesn't have.
>>> 
>>>> English does have an impersonal passive, and and what you wrote is
>>>> grammatical, but again, not idiomatic. No one would have noticed
>> or
>>>> commented except that the sentence was posted to
>> alt.usage.english.
>>> 
>>> I disagree wth both sentences. What's an example of an impersonal
>> passive in
>>> English that anyone would say? And if Antonio tries posting
>> sentences
>> like
>>> that on the Internet as, say, Anthony Marks, I'll bet it wouldn't be
>> long
>>> till someone asked him what his native language is.
> 
>> https://books.google.com/books?q="it+was+said"
> 
>> Now, a lot of those results are from court reports and so don’t qualify
>> as
>> “anyone would say,” but that register of English is still English.
> 
> I think "It was said that" isn't what Antonio meant by "impersonal
> passive".  In "It was said that", the "It" refers to the thing that was
> said,

I don't think it does, just like my 'it' doesn't either:

It was said (that ...)
It was said (quote)
It is often said (that ...)
It is often said a picture is worth a thousand words

In all cases, 'it' doesn't refer to anything. It's there because the syntax
requires a subject. The thing you think it refers to is the object, not the
subject.

> but Antonio said his "It" did not refer to "dither".
> 
> I don't object to calling "It was said that..." an impersonal passive,
> though, and I may have misunderstood Antonio.
> 
>> Is the British Council wrong?
> 
>> https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/advanced-passives-review#:~:text=The%20impersonal%20passive%20has%20two,from%20the%20third%20century%20BCE.
> 
> They're right, because they rule out Antonio's sentence; they say
> what follows the past participle must be either a "that" clause or
> an infinitive (with "to").

No, they go to the trouble of parenthesising 'that'.