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.

!

Source

'Central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery,' he said adding later that, 'we should not rule out the further use of such policies if economic conditions warrant.'

The verb warrant is transitive. So is a it or that missing after warrant?

share|improve this question
    
To my ear it is required. –  Spinner Sep 4 '12 at 8:13
2  
To my ear, it is not required. So I guess it's a regional difference. –  user16269 Sep 4 '12 at 8:24
    
@DavidWallace So, an INTRANSITIVE version of the verb warrant exists? –  Nortonn S Sep 4 '12 at 8:58
1  
No, I believe it can only be transitive. But here, the object is implied - it's "the further use of such policies", even though the same phrase is the object of another verb. In my speech, I would omit a duplicated object like this one, and I probably wouldn't even provide a pronoun. I don't know whether this is a regional anomaly or not. –  user16269 Sep 4 '12 at 9:03
1  
Without a technical explanation (so it's not really enough for an answer), I'd be fine with hearing "warrant" without "it", but in reading it, there's the feeling of ending too abruptly. –  rsegal Sep 4 '12 at 13:29

3 Answers 3

Warrant is transitive, but in this case the object it is missing. This is an example of ellipsis. (Wikipedia)

share|improve this answer

Yes, warrant is transitive, but more to the point is whether it's a good choice of verb at all. What the speaker presumably meant was if economic conditions justify it (or them).

share|improve this answer
    
So, "if economics conditions warrant" is wrong and it should rewritten as "if economic conditions warrant IT" ? –  Nortonn S Sep 4 '12 at 8:57
    
I think the particular construction itself might be forgiven in speech, but something like 'justify' still seems to me to be a more appropriate word in the context. –  Barrie England Sep 4 '12 at 9:12
    
So, I could write "if the conditions require" instead of "if the conditions require IT"? –  Nortonn S Sep 4 '12 at 9:28
    
It makes no difference. 'Require' is also a transitive verb. It is possible to omit 'it' by way of ellipsis, but in formal writing it would be advisable to include it. –  Barrie England Sep 4 '12 at 9:45
1  
Interesting! I'm in the group that likes they way this phrase sounds as is. To me the it is implied and understood. I also think require could be used with or without it. Justify seems to require it and seems a little out of place here because it implies strength of the economy to support (finance) such an action rather than weakness of the economy necessitating the action. Just my opinion here, but I find the nuances of words very interesting. Glad for others perspectives! –  Mike Sep 4 '12 at 10:31

'Central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery,' he said adding later that, 'we should not rule out the further use of such policies if economic conditions warrant.'

..

I am confused by the use of nouns or verbs in this context. I wonder if you could explain?

..

Warrant is transitive, but in this case the object it is missing. This is an example of ellipsis.

..

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ellipsis

The omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred.

..


So in this case we have the omission of 'it' which is not very helpful, because you always have to think what 'it' is and sometimes 'it' is nothing.

'Central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery,' he said adding later that, 'we should not rule out the further use of such policies if economic conditions warrant it.'


So what is 'it'?

'Central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery,' he said adding later that, 'we should not rule out the further use of such policies if economic conditions warrant central bank securities purchases.'

share|improve this answer
1  
That is the definition of 'warrant' as a noun. It's a verb in the OP's example. –  Barrie England Sep 4 '12 at 8:32
    
This really doesn't answer the question. –  user16269 Sep 4 '12 at 9:16
    
I think that I was struggling with the status of warrant as a verb or noun. Perhaps it similar to 'to prove' and 'proof'. I tried to use the word 'prove'because it was in the definition whereas justify has much more natural feel. –  Robin Michael Sep 4 '12 at 10:00
    
Right, but answers are for answering the question. Comments are for commenting on the question, or requesting further information about what was actually meant. The intention of every Stack Exchange site is to provide expert answers to useful questions. If you don't understand the question, then answering it may be considered unhelpful. –  user16269 Sep 4 '12 at 19:33

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.