Use of "worth [it]" and "worth while"

@MlleSim posted:

This post has been "sparked" by the following ungrammatical DeepL-generated output/translation:

– It's worth it to see her doing laundry.

As far as I am aware, this is ungrammatical as written.

Hello, MlleSim—I do not perceive the sentence as ungrammatical. "Worth it" is a bit informal, but it is a common phrase in the English language. And the first "it" is just anticipatory "it." Undoing the extraposition of the infinitival, we have:

• To see her doing laundry is worth it.

I believe you have The Oxford English Dictionary in hard copy. The following has been copied and pasted from definition III. 9. a. under "worth" (adj.) in the online version of the O.E.D. Only one example actually has "worth it" (in red):

Quote:
"9. Sufficiently valuable or important to be treated or regarded in the way specified; deserving of the time or effort spent.Frequently used to make recommendations, and often modified by well (see well adv. 16b).

a. With simple noun or pronoun as complement, as worth the effort. In later use frequently in to be worth it: having, or likely to have, an outcome that justifies the time or effort spent.Recorded earliest in worth the while at while n. 3b.Formerly occasionally with of (e.g. quot. 1866).

▸ a1387  J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (St. John's Cambr.) (1872) IV. 355 (MED)   The queene..beet Iudas ful ofte, but al for nouȝt, ffor it was not worþ þe while.

a1413  (▸c1385)   G. Chaucer Troilus & Criseyde (Pierpont Morgan) (1882) v. l. 882   The which right sore wolde a-þynken me That ye for ony wight þat dwelleth þere Sholde spille a quarter of a tere..it is nought worth þe while.

1556 M. Huggarde Displaying of Protestantes (new ed.) f. 40   It shall be worth the traueill to say somwhat therein.

1642 C. Saltonstall Navigator (ed. 2) 65   They [sc. the Theorems] will give you so great a light..that it will be well worth your labour.

1660 in E. Nicholas Nicholas Papers (1920) IV. 231   He is acquainted with diuers things worth the knowledge.

1667 J. Milton Paradise Lost i. 262   To reign is worth ambition though in Hell. View more context for this quotation

1711 W. King tr. G. Naudé Polit. Considerations Refin'd Politicks iii. 107   That the crown of France was well worth the trouble of hearing one mass.

1744 M. Bishop Life Matthew Bishop 137   I..was very inquisitive in asking about every particular Thing that was worth my Observation.

1772 ‘Junius’ Stat Nominis Umbra II. lxviii. 316   It is worth the reader's attention to observe.

1836 C. Dickens Pickwick Papers (1837) iii. 33   ‘They are not worth your notice,’ said the dismal man.

1866 J. M. Neale Sequences & Hymns 23   Ye, who sometimes think the glory Of the labour scantly worth.

1877 T. H. Huxley Physiography 76   The rusting of this particular metal is worth closer study.

1912 G. R. Parkin Rhodes Scholarships vi. 159   Some care in organizing time may be required, and some resoluteness of purpose; but the goal is worth the effort.

1938 G. Greene Brighton Rock vii. ix. 346   They looked up and moued to each other, as much as to say—‘Oh well, she wasn't really worth the trouble.’

1952 G. H. Dury Map Interpr. xi. 100   Canal names are worth particular attention.

1978 New Scientist 28 Sept. 962/2   So, was it worth it? Has it started a ‘debate’ so loved of the chat shows and the current affairs jamborees?

1991 Connecticut May 46/2   Recent studies..have indicated that it may be worth the wait.

1992 R. Graef Living Dangerously i. 47   I won't get into a stolen car, it's not worth it.

2002 Sound & Vision May 76/1   So if you have a DTV, or are thinking of getting one soon, it's well worth a look."

@David, Moderator posted:

Hello, MlleSim—I do not perceive the sentence as ungrammatical. "Worth it" is a bit informal, but it is a common phrase in the English language. And the first "it" is just anticipatory "it." Undoing the extraposition of the infinitival, we have:

• To see her doing laundry is worth it.

I believe you have The Oxford English Dictionary in hard copy. The following has been copied and pasted from definition III. 9. a. under "worth" (adj.) in the online version of the O.E.D. Only one example actually has "worth it" (in red):

1992 R. Graef Living Dangerously i. 47   I won't get into a stolen car, it's not worth it.

Hello, David! Sorry - I just deleted this post because I need to reflect on your reply a bit more... I will update it later! In the meantime, thank you!

@MlleSim posted:

Firstly, do you not recall having mentioned Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in this 2018 post? Do you no longer agree with his analysis? I found it quite thought-provoking...!

Are you trying to argue that I have argued against my present position in the distant past? I'll take a look at the thread, but I wish to be related to in real time on the forum, not to have things I have written be cited as if they were set-in-stone views for all time. My views in grammar evolve, as do all grammarians'.

@MlleSim posted:

Secondly, to address the example you cited ("I won't get into a stolen car, it's not worth it"): I do not feel that this second "it" is the same as the one in my question. In this case, isn't the second "it" an actual pronoun referring to the act of getting into a stolen car? Are you saying that, in my example, the second "it" is supposed to refer to what follows?

In your undoing of the extraposition ("to see her doing laundry is worth it"), what does this second "it" refer to? Going back to Fowler's analysis, I cannot help but feel rather confused...

Is "to be worth it" just a set phrase now?

I disagree. I think this "it" is of the same type. It is a vague, situational "it," and the phrase is extremely common. I am surprised you find it ungrammatical. I probably hear the phrase multiple times a week. I use it too. I find absolutely no grounds, despite whatever I may have said many years ago when taking Fowler's old-fashioned prescriptions too seriously, for considering it ungrammatical, or for instructing computers to avoid it in auto-translations.

@David, Moderator posted:

Are you trying to argue that I have argued against my present position in the distant past? I'll take a look at the thread, but I wish to be related to in real time on the forum, not to have things I have written be cited as if they were set-in-stone views for all time. My views in grammar evolve, as do all grammarians'.

This is amusing... I deleted my post when you were already in the process of replying to it... I will not do that again, my apologies!

As for what you asked: no, no! I am just confused I am trying to connect Fowler's analysis with your reply above. He does not address (I believe) this case with "to be worth it" with an anticipatory "it", so I am trying to fit this example into what he wrote.

@David, Moderator posted:

I disagree. I think this "it" is of the same type. It is a vague, situational "it," and the phrase is extremely common. I am surprised you find it ungrammatical. I probably hear the phrase multiple times a week. I use it too. I find absolutely no grounds, despite whatever I may have said many years ago when taking Fowler's old-fashioned prescriptions too seriously, for considering it ungrammatical, or for instructing computers to avoid it in auto-translations.

Thank you for sharing this perspective. I think I find it ungrammatical only because I cannot parse it satisfactorily in my mind. I too have heard it all too oft, but that does not mean I "like" it. It just seems rather awkward to me for some reason. I will continue to mull over it, though...

(Just a thought: do you consider the "it" in "to be worth it" akin to the "while" in "to be worth while"? Meaning, it is intended to replace some sort of unsaid/unspecified "effort/expenditure"?)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A note about Fowler: I am starting to question his analysis (his third "point", in particular). In the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, for instance, we can find the following two examples:

– It's worth making an appointment before you go.

– It's always worth paying the extra £3 for next-day delivery.

I am perfectly happy with these sentences, yet don't they "technically" illustrate what he calls "worth with no object"?

@MlleSim posted:

Thank you for sharing this perspective. I think I find it ungrammatical only because I cannot parse it satisfactorily in my mind. I too have heard it all too oft, but that does not mean I "like" it. It just seems rather awkward to me for some reason. I will continue to mull over it, though...

(Just a thought: do you consider the "it" in "to be worth it" akin to the "while" in "to be worth while"? Meaning, it is intended to replace some sort of unsaid/unspecified "effort/expenditure"?)

Hello again, MlleSim—The Cambridge learner's dictionary (here) defines "worth it" as an idiom meaning "enjoyable or useful despite the fact that you have to make an effort."

The reason I categorize the "it" in "worth it" as situational "it" is that it doesn't have a one-size-fits-all noun substitute, like "while," that can be used in its place. Sometimes "it" refers to the time, sometimes to the effort.

Basically, the "it" refers to what was done, or to what is being done, or to what will be done, depending on the context. If something was worth it, it was worth doing, in the speaker's perspective.

In one of my favorite films, The Insider (1999), in which Russell Crowe plays an ex-tobacco scientist and corporate whistleblower, he is interviewed on 60 Minutes. The interview ends with the line "Yeah, I think it's worth it."

That line, far from being a grammatical error on the part of the film producers or script writers, is, in my opinion, without question the most powerful line in the whole film. Eye contact plays a role in this, however, as does the story!

You can watch the interview at this link. The volume is very soft in the clip, unfortunately. I can't find a better clip with that line. I recommend simply watching the whole film. The passage in question is at 3:06-16.

• "If you asked me, 'Would I do it again? Do I think it's worth it?' Yeah, I think it's worth it."

I'd be interested to know if the grammar horrifies you. To me, it is 100% natural. The sentence of Crowe's could, of course, be expanded to "Yeah, I think it's worth it to do what I have done."

@David, Moderator posted:

Hello again, MlleSim—The Cambridge learner's dictionary (here) defines "worth it" as an idiom meaning "enjoyable or useful despite the fact that you have to make an effort."

Yes, I saw this entry too in the Cambridge dictionary. Do you feel that both the idiomatic "to be worth it" and the examples I cited from the Oxford Learner's clash a bit with Fowler's analysis?

@David, Moderator posted:

• "If you asked me, 'Would I do it again? Do I think it's worth it?' Yeah, I think it's worth it."

I'd be interested to know if the grammar horrifies you. To me, it is 100% natural. The sentence of Crowe's could, of course, be expanded to "Yeah, I think it's worth it to do what I have done."

The grammar of the line alone, without any extension, does not horrify me if I just accept "to be worth it" as an idiomatic expression.   Once expanded, though, with an infinitive after... I am still a tad befuddled when I attempt to analysise the second "it". So I will just stop attempting and view it as a vague "something" representing an unspecified effort/expenditure. Then my confusion is quelled.

@MlleSim posted:

Yes, I saw this entry too in the Cambridge dictionary. Do you feel that both the idiomatic "to be worth it" and the examples I cited from the Oxford Learner's clash a bit with Fowler's analysis?

@MlleSim posted:

In the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, for instance, we can find the following two examples:

– It's worth making an appointment before you go.

– It's always worth paying the extra £3 for next-day delivery.

I am perfectly happy with these sentences, yet don't they "technically" illustrate what he calls "worth with no object"?

Unlike you, I am not happy with those examples at all, and I agree with the Fowlerian criticism that "worth" appears without the needed object in them. They could, however, be fixed by using the expression you dislike ("worth it") and either changing the gerund (or nominal -ing phrase) to an extraposed infinitival or fronting the gerund. I have no problem with any of these:

• It's worth it to make an appointment before you go.
• Making an appointment before you go is worth it.
• It's always worth it to pay the extra £3 for next-day delivery.
• Paying the extra £3 for next-day delivery is always worth it.

The examples could alternatively be fixed by adding "while" after "worth," as you like to do (I'm not sure anyone besides you uses those two words separately nowadays) or by changing "worth" to "worthwhile." Fowler's objection to "worthwhile" (one word) has long been deemed misguided. I only separate "worth" and "while" when saying things like "worth your while."

@MlleSim posted:

The grammar of the line alone, without any extension, does not horrify me if I just accept "to be worth it" as an idiomatic expression.   Once expanded, though, with an infinitive after... I am still a tad befuddled when I attempt to analysise the second "it". So I will just stop attempting and view it as a vague "something" representing an unspecified effort/expenditure. Then my confusion is quelled.

Do you have trouble with weather "it," as in "It is raining," or with the "it" in "It is two o'clock in the afternoon"? If not, then the absence of a definitive referent of "it" is not intrinsically perplexing to you in thousands of expressions you must encounter weekly. Therefore, our problem becomes how to loosen you up just with "worth it." Why should vagueness be tolerated here as perfectly fine?

I think it is possible to provide a referent of "it" in "be worth it," and we don't have to say that it is "a vague 'something.'" We may say that, in the expression, "it" refers either to the set of consequences of a given action (what doing the action leads to) or to the set of entailments of that action (what one does in doing the thing) or to the larger set comprising both the aforementioned sets.

In the scene from The Insider to which I drew attention, the dramatic pause at the end does not signify that Mike Wallace, the interviewer, is trying to identify an antecedent for Jeffrey Wigand's (Russell Crowe's) "it"! That pause has nothing to do with grammar. The communication is perfect; it is crystal clear, and I can't imagine anyone being perplexed as to its meaning.

@David, Moderator posted:

Unlike you, I am not happy with those examples at all, and I agree with the Fowlerian criticism that "worth" appears without the needed object in them. They could, however, be fixed by using the expression you dislike ("worth it") and either changing the gerund (or nominal -ing phrase) to an extraposed infintival or fronting the gerund.

The examples could alternatively be fixed by adding "while" after "worth," as you like to do (I'm not sure anyone besides you uses those two words separately nowadays) or by changing "worth" to "worthwhile."

This is certainly interesting... I guess I am only "happy" with them because I have become used to hearing the "worth + -ing" construction and perhaps tried to view the gerund as the object of "worth". I like your remedies and definitely see that "it" can play the very same role as "while" (which I seem to have so readily adopted, albeit in a non-standard manner ). I noticed something queer, though, when poking around in Fowler's work. On page 5 under "absolute possessives", he writes the following:

– The ordinary uses of these need not be set forth here, though it is perhaps worth remarking that...

Has he not just contravened the "worth-without-an-object" rule? Does this construction ("it is worth remarking/noting/observing, etc...", all to my mind quite common) constitute some sort of exception?

@David, Moderator posted:

Therefore, our problem becomes how to loosen you up just with "worth it."

@David, Moderator posted:

Do you have trouble with weather "it," as in "It is raining," or with the "it" in "It is two o'clock in the afternoon"?

I think it is possible to provide a referent of "it" in "be worth it," and we don't have to say that it is "a vague 'something.'" We may say that, in the expression, "it" refers either to the set of consequences of a given action (what doing the action leads to) or to the set of entailments of that action (what one does in doing the thing) or to the larger set comprising both the aforementioned sets.

Oddly, I do not have an issue with "it" in these contexts, so my so-called block definitely seems to be limited (for the moment ) to "to be worth it". I find your analysis very palatable, though, and I appreciate your having taken the time to formulate it so clearly. My only remaining "thorn" is therefore the construction "it is worth remarking/noting/observing, etc...". I will venture to plumb the question I posed above, though. Let us compare the following:

(a) It is worth remarking that cows are not red.
(a') That cows are not red is worth remarking.

(b) It is worth making an appointment before you go.
(b') An appointment before you go is worth making.

The fact that (b') does not work seems to go some way towards showing why (b) is ungrammatical (though I cannot put my finger on why yet...). That said, the second sentence from the Oxford Learner's Dictionary does not seem to lend itself so well to this analysis:

(c) It is always worth paying the extra £3 for next-day delivery.
(c') The extra £3 for next-day delivery are always worth paying.

The ungrammaticality of (c') is not as clear-cut to me. What do you think? Is this train of thought at least somewhat valid?

@MlleSim posted:

I noticed something queer, though, when poking around in Fowler's work. On page 5 under "absolute possessives", he writes the following:

– The ordinary uses of these need not be set forth here, though it is perhaps worth remarking that...

Has he not just contravened the "worth-without-an-object" rule? Does this construction ("it is worth remarking/noting/observing, etc...", all to my mind quite common) constitute some sort of exception?

This is a very interesting case—one that I have thought a good deal about in the past, not that I had seen the example you found, penned by the great Fowler himself.

There are two ways of parsing "It is worth remarking that thus-and-such is the case." If "it" is parsed as anticipatory "it," with the -ing clause extraposed, we have: *"Remarking that thus-and-such is the case is worth."

I am happy to report there is another way of parsing such clauses. The "it" is still treated as anticipatory; however, the extraposed clause is not the -ing one, but the "that"-clause: "That thus-and-such is the case is worth remarking."

Isn't that satisfying?

@MlleSim posted:

My only remaining "thorn" is therefore the construction "it is worth remarking/noting/observing, etc...". I will venture to plumb the question I posed above, though. Let us compare the following:

(a) It is worth remarking that cows are not red.
(a') That cows are not red is worth remarking.

That is exactly the parsing I recommended above!

@MlleSim posted:

(b) It is worth making an appointment before you go.
(b') An appointment before you go is worth making.

The fact that (b') does not work seems to go some way towards showing why (b) is ungrammatical (though I cannot put my finger on why yet...). T=

I agree with you that neither of those sentences works. However, (b') would be OK if "before you go" were placed in its proper position, as a modifier of "making": (b'')

(b'') An appointment is worth making before you go."

As to the reason (b) is ungrammatical, the problem is that, unlike "that"-clauses and infinitival-clauses and embedded interrogatives, indefinite and definite noun phrases do not extrapose. We could use Right Dislocation (very forced):

(b''') It/One is worth making before you go, an appointment.

@MlleSim posted:

That said, the second sentence from the Oxford Learner's Dictionary does not seem to lend itself so well to this analysis:

(c) It is always worth paying the extra £3 for next-day delivery.
(c') The extra £3 for next-day delivery are always worth paying.

The ungrammaticality of (c') is not as clear-cut to me. What do you think? Is this train of thought at least somewhat valid?

Sentence (c') would be fine if "are" were changed to "is." If I say, "Five dollars are on the table," I am thinking about individual bills; but if I say, "Five dollars is nothing," I am thinking about a quantity of money for some purpose.

Again, the reason a sentence like (c) is ungrammatical is that definite and indefinite noun phrases do not extrapose; and, again, we could force Right Dislocation: "It is always worth paying, the extra £3 for next-day delivery."

@David, Moderator posted:

Isn't that satisfying?

Delightfully!

@David, Moderator posted:

I agree with you that neither of those sentences works. However, (b') would be OK if "before you go" were placed in its proper position, as a modifier of "making": (b'')

(b'') An appointment is worth making before you go."

As to the reason (b) is ungrammatical, the problem is that, unlike "that"-clauses and infinitival-clauses and embedded interrogatives, indefinite and definite noun phrases do not extrapose. We could use Right Dislocation (very forced):

(b''') It/One is worth making before you go, an appointment.

I do wonder why I didn't see this alternative way of ordering (b)! Seems so obvious now. As for the reason behind (b)'s ungrammaticality, your explanation is very new to me! I will bear it in mind when I try my hand at such analysis in future...

@David, Moderator posted:

Sentence (c') would be fine if "are" were changed to "is." If I say, "Five dollars are on the table," I am thinking about individual bills; but if I say, "Five dollars is nothing," I am thinking about a quantity of money for some purpose.

Again, the reason a sentence like (c) is ungrammatical is that definite and indefinite noun phrases do not extrapose; and, again, we could force Right Dislocation: "It is always worth paying, the extra £3 for next-day delivery."

Funny you mention this, because I initially had "is" but then, alas, doubted myself and changed it to "are". Unless you correct me in a further reply, I will assume "is" is proper – and not "are" – because one pays a certain amount and not individual bills. Hence, reference to the individual bills becomes nonsensical.

To wrap up this conversation, I again thank you for these most helpful and thorough clarifications! A grateful student indeed.