Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it considered grammatical to refer to a gerund in the subject position with the pronoun "it"?
Example:

Visiting a dentist regularly is recommended as it can contribute to overall health.

share|improve this question
1  
Fishing is permitted here, isn't it? –  GEdgar Oct 14 '11 at 20:25
    
@GEdgar It is clear that that is not the it that you think it is. –  tchrist Feb 1 '12 at 23:49

2 Answers 2

Sure. Using the pronoun it there is perfectly grammatical.

share|improve this answer

Gerunds are words derived from verbs that are used as nouns; they can be used as subject of a sentence, and (as with every noun) you can replace them with pronouns.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for a good explanation of why. –  zpletan Oct 15 '11 at 12:55
1  
Gerunds aren't used as nouns though. Gerunds can take subjects and objects. In this example, the gerund visiting has the object the dentist. If I replace the gerund with a noun, the result is ungrammatical: Visitation a dentist regularly is recommended. –  morphail Oct 15 '11 at 14:27
    
@morphail Actually, I would not use visitation because it means " an official or formal visit." The fact gerunds function as nouns doesn't mean you can always replace them with another noun. –  kiamlaluno Oct 15 '11 at 16:30
    
@kiamlaluno My point is that a nouns and gerunds occupy certain syntactic slots. You can't put a noun in the slot that a gerund occupies. If gerunds were nouns, then I should be able to replace them with other nouns. For instance, dentist is a noun, and I can replace it with another noun: Visiting a house regularly is recommended. The sentence might not make sense, but it is grammatical because the noun is in the right place. But if I replace visiting with a noun, then the result is ungrammatical: Visitation a dentist regularly is recommended. A gerund is not a noun. –  morphail Oct 15 '11 at 17:07
    
@morphail I didn't write that a gerund is a noun; I wrote that gerunds function as nouns (or they are used as nouns). The fact you cannot always replace a gerund with a noun is not different from the fact you cannot always replace a noun with another noun. Take as example "the lions roar"; lions is a noun, but you cannot replace it with lambs, and obtain "the lambs roar." –  kiamlaluno Oct 15 '11 at 17:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.