2

the “scrap grubbers” who make the waste industry far more industrious than it is wasteful.

Can it is be discarded here?

If yes, will this make the sentence less natural or counter to normal usage?

Source:LARB

  • 2
    I think there's a slight nuance to including it is there. Without it, the intended meaning may simply be that industrious describes the waste industry better than wasteful (which doesn't necessarily imply that the industry is at all "wasteful"). When it is is included, there's a clear implication that the industry is to some extent "wasteful" (but its industriousness outweighs its wastefulness). – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica May 20 '14 at 22:27
1

First, I need to point out that this isn't a sentence. Drop the "who" to make the sentence about the "scrap grubbers." Keeping the who means this is all, essentially, the subject of the sentence.

But, yes, you can drop "it is" without any change in meaning. If you drop the "who" to make this a sentence, "it is" fits equally well as simply dropping dropping "it is". On the other hand, if you keep this as a sentence fragment and add on a predicate, the "it is" sounds a little awkward to me but it's still understandable.

In the first case, I think they are equally natural and up to preference. In the second case, I think "it is" is a bit awkward. I think it's because of the verbs. In the first case, the implication seems to be that the scrap grubbers preclude wastefulness in the industry so you wouldn't say "it is wasteful". In the second case, it seems more like a defensive statement where you're not necessarily denying the wastefulness.

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.