6

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.

2
  • 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
6

Sure. Using the pronoun it there is perfectly grammatical.

5

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.

7
  • 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
  • @kiamlaluno Yes you can. The lambs roar is a grammatical sentence. We have a noun, lambs, preceding the verb roar and following the determiner the. But replacing a gerund with a noun often results in an ungrammatical sentence, as in my example. In my example, we have the noun phrase a dentist immediately following the noun visitation. This is not grammatical; we can't stick 2 noun phrases together like this. As far as I can see, there's no difference between saying something functions as a noun or is used as a noun, and saying it is a noun. – morphail Oct 15 '11 at 17:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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