I think 'it' is proper here, but I imagine the writer felt a little weird, as if Rehnquist was the referent of 'it'. Especially given that the writer is also trying to cram in information about the funeral; it seems that 'it' doesn't get a funeral, 'he' does.
'The body of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was brought this morning to the Supreme Court's Great Hall to lie in repose until the funeral, scheduled for Wednesday.'
Huh, "he" seems fine to me. "There he is, dead." Don't we use formulations like "the body of" to distingush Rehnquist living/dead as opposed to Rehnquist/not-Rehnquist?
I'd tend to agree with Ogged in 5. We say things like "He lies buried in Arlington cemetery," etc. And "Rehnquist was brought..." would be fearfully misleading even if not false.
truly, doesn't "the rotting corpse" convey more information? Or "Rehnquist's discarded shell?" The "man-suit?" "Mortal trappings?" "Rehnquist's stiff yet putty-like anatomy, adorned with paint and make-up, stuffed so as to fill out his otherwise useless clothing?"
We should wait until Cheney kicks off, then prop them both up in a scene of some sort; probably playing bridge, with a glass of scotch within easy reach.
"President's Body Will Lie in State," by Jack Raymond, New York Times 11/23/1963, p. 1
The body of John F. Kennedy will lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol tomorrow and then will be borne to St. Matthew's Roman Catholic Cathedral for a pontifical requiem mass at noon Monday.
The President's body was returned to Washington yesterday in the same Air Force jet that carried him to Texas Thursday.
The plane, with Mrs. Kennedy, the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Mrs. Johnson aboard, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base at about 6 P.M.
It was announced later that Mr. Kennedy's body would lie in the East Room of the White House today....
So, in the opening four sentences, three of them have the body as a subject and refer to the body as "the body". Sounds like they were avoiding pronoun trouble. Later in the article, "the coffin containing the President's body" gets the pronoun "it," but this is clearly a less-difficult choice.
It seems to me "his body" would be an aprropriate term.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 9:55 AM
It'd be awesome if they made a wax model of Renquist, representing the dignitas of the Chief Justice, which never dies.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 9:57 AM
I think 'it' is proper here, but I imagine the writer felt a little weird, as if Rehnquist was the referent of 'it'. Especially given that the writer is also trying to cram in information about the funeral; it seems that 'it' doesn't get a funeral, 'he' does.
'The body of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was brought this morning to the Supreme Court's Great Hall to lie in repose until the funeral, scheduled for Wednesday.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 9:58 AM
In my imagination, Rehnquist's body is emitting a foul stench, Zosima-like.
In my imagination.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:02 AM
Huh, "he" seems fine to me. "There he is, dead." Don't we use formulations like "the body of" to distingush Rehnquist living/dead as opposed to Rehnquist/not-Rehnquist?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:02 AM
Great Googly moogly! I'm surprised by this.
I'd tend to agree with Ogged in 5. We say things like "He lies buried in Arlington cemetery," etc. And "Rehnquist was brought..." would be fearfully misleading even if not false.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:05 AM
truly, doesn't "the rotting corpse" convey more information? Or "Rehnquist's discarded shell?" The "man-suit?" "Mortal trappings?" "Rehnquist's stiff yet putty-like anatomy, adorned with paint and make-up, stuffed so as to fill out his otherwise useless clothing?"
In general, yes, "the body" is an it.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:06 AM
Weiner, you pig, see here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:08 AM
Drymala: no doubt caused by partaking of the cherry jam.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:09 AM
Could we do what the Chinese did with Mao and encase Rehnquist's mortal coil in a crystal sarcophagus like a giant butterfly?
Because that would totally rock.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:24 AM
We should wait until Cheney kicks off, then prop them both up in a scene of some sort; probably playing bridge, with a glass of scotch within easy reach.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:27 AM
8: good point--pwned!--but I was expecting it to be not even close for the personal pronoun.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:31 AM
11 -- or poker.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:39 AM
with a glass of scotch within easy reach
Is it a contest, are they sharing, or do you mean two glasses?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:47 AM
Two glasses.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 10:53 AM
Just, as a data point:
"President's Body Will Lie in State," by Jack Raymond, New York Times 11/23/1963, p. 1
So, in the opening four sentences, three of them have the body as a subject and refer to the body as "the body". Sounds like they were avoiding pronoun trouble. Later in the article, "the coffin containing the President's body" gets the pronoun "it," but this is clearly a less-difficult choice.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 11:45 AM
Re: 11, Cheney, Scalia, a shotgun and a duck.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 09- 6-05 4:01 PM
Forget pronouns; check out the headline in today's NY Times:
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09- 7-05 2:38 PM