it...if

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:36 am

Do you detect anything that might differenciate the original (1) from the revised (2)?

(1) "It'll give you a gut-ache if you swallow it like that without chewing." Charlie went on wolfing the candy.
(Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.)
(2) "You'll have a gut-ache if you swallow it like that without chewing."
Charlie went on wolfing the candy.

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:05 am

Very little difference in meaning that I can see (speakers might opt for 'get' rather than 'have' in 2) though, to make the cause-effect relationship as clear in 2) as it is in 1); compare *It'll get you a gut-ache... with *You'll give a gut-ache... (note however that You'll give yourself a gut-ache... is OK)).

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:26 pm

Dear fluffyhamster,
I appreciate your help and comments.

Seiichi MYOGA

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:23 pm

Seiichi MYOGA wrote:Do you detect anything that might differenciate the original (1) from the revised (2)?

(1) "It'll give you a gut-ache if you swallow it like that without chewing." Charlie went on wolfing the candy.
(Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.)
(2) "You'll have a gut-ache if you swallow it like that without chewing."
Charlie went on wolfing the candy.

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

If we think about how English normally places the most important information toward the front of the sentence... I see the first as focusing on the candy - the "it" in "It'll give you..." being cataphoric (forward looking) reference for "candy". The second focuses more on the swallower, who is placed at the front of the sentence. Otherwise... no difference.

Mind you, some may see the "It'll" in (1) as referring to the act of swallowing.

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:54 pm

Dear metal56,

I appreciate your help and comments.

I'm surprised that (1) is really ambiguous in that "it" in the main sentence may refer to "the candy" or the content of the "if"-clause (or the act of swallowing the candy like that without chewing).

Seiichi MYOGA

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:29 am

Seiichi MYOGA wrote:I'm surprised that (1) is really ambiguous in that "it" in the main sentence may refer to "the candy" or the content of the "if"-clause (or the act of swallowing the candy like that without chewing).

Thank goodness for concepts like the 'dummy subject' (it helps dummies like me, anyway)!

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:52 am

Hi, Fluffyhamster,

If you hadn't said something, I could have overlooked something.

What about if we reverse the word order of the main and subordinate clause in (1)?

(1) "It'll give you a gut-ache if you swallow it like that without chewing." Charlie went on wolfing the candy.
(Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.)

I think you'd say that now there's no ambiguity about the reference of "it": it correctly (expectedly) refers to the content of the "if"-clause only.

(3) "If you swallow it like that without chewing, it will give you a gut-ache."
Charlie went on wolfing the candy.

Seiichi MYOGA

Teacher Discussion Forums

it...if

it...if

Re: it...if