WAR Group A Comment ('IT') TAM Group A

We agree that it varies in different languages and we find that question interesting. However there is one more question we would like to raise. In the definition given by the Helsinki group, IT was defined as charisma, personal charm, etc. So, if there are already existing words for such special characteristics of individuals, why are we hiding them behind the word it? Is IT a way to mystify something which in reality maybe even isn't that ephemeral?Isn't "It" just a universal idea (one Plato spoke about)? Like "beauty" which can be embodied in a nice girl/handsome boy passing by, or in Mona Lisa, or in cows chewing grass on the meadow (depends on individual/culture, etc.) But what IS important, is that every time we say "It", no matter relating to an inanimate object or charisma, we ourselves always know what we are talking about, what image WE have at this certain moment.AMS Group A (Loreto, Olga, and Ty) CHALLENGE ("It') for TAM Group AWhile we agree with Warwick's abstract and expansive definition of “it,” we want to argue that “it” can also be a concrete notion, because in some particular examples “it” appears as a specification of that object. We could bring a simple example: “The book lay on the table. It has been already read.” So in this instance, “it” refers to something specific.We also want to return to Joseph Roach’s definition of “it” as “precondition of celebrity”: charisma, presence, aura, etc. But even this narrow usage of the word is very problematic. Who has “it”? Can we say that Britney Spears has “it”? Can we copy “it”? Would a Britney Spears impersonator embody the real Britney Spears’ “it”? And who determines who has “it”? Finally, we want to point out that “it” is a very specific word in English. But in some languages, such as Spanish or Russian, the notion of “it” as we are using it in English. We use not one, but many words, to denote a concrete “it.”WAR Group A Definition ('IT'). For AMS Group ADay 3: Response to Helsinki Keyword 'It'. Part 1... Definition.We really enjoyed your work following Joseph Roach's book “It.”'It' is a troublesome word, primarily because of its more common usage.Alternative definition following from your post: "it: (pronoun) 1) used to refer to an animal or thing that has already been mentioned or that is being talked about now".In Eritrea, the word 'it' can often refer to a target. In performance, 'it' can be the goal or the end result.'It', again in performance, or to clarify 'political performance', can refer to that abstract space of understanding and efficaciousness. For example. The issue of female circumssion. 'It' can refer to the audience gaining access to a fuller understanding of the issue by reaching this abstract space. By reaching the target, the goal etc.'It' can be an object or subject (even an ideology). It is important to clarify that this is an abstract concept. But an abstract concept that is mailable to the subject/object referred to. Like a chameleon, 'it' can change its skin colour. Though the bones, the structure, the building blocks, of the abstract 'it' is fixed, the flesh and blood and skin of that abstract concept can be molded accordingly, dependent on the subject/object referred to. 'It' can bring something past or future into the present. 'It' makes a subject or object immediate. Use of the word 'it' can affect and even perhaps manipulate the object or subject referred to by means of presnet circumstances, be they sociological, psychological, political, cultrual etc. So use of the word 'it' can taint the object/subject referred to.

Its been great following all the responses to such an ambiguous word.

We've come to the conclusion that 'IT' has become a scapegoat for the language. It tells us something about one of two things:

1) The English language cannot cope with something so intangible (We don't agree with this!)

2) We as individuals struggle to cope with something so intangible (Much more likely).

So when we struggle to cope with a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (we are aware of the irony in using this term) we savage 'IT' and use 'IT' as a means to an end. 'IT' becomes a scapegoat for our inability to adequatly describe a particular state of an individual. For example, Marilyn Monroe had 'IT'. What do we mean? Marilyn Monroe had 'sex appeal', 'charisma' etc... Instead of using a whole host of words to give a clear indication of what 'IT' is we are trying to describe.