Timeline for relative clause? syntax unclear
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2023 at 16:43 | comment | added | Lambie | For me, the structure is basically appositional. | |
| Mar 15, 2023 at 15:30 | comment | added | John Lawler | It's an awkward sentence, to be sure. Things have been done to it that should not have been. Yes, it's a reduced relative clause, yes, it's missing of which, and yes, it should be a tensed clause, not an infinitive. I think the writer or speaker just wanted to get it out fast and get on with it. This is in the nature of an after-afterthought, and grammar is far less of a consideration than CYA. | |
| Mar 15, 2023 at 15:03 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Feb 14, 2023 at 4:26 | comment | added | alphabet | (A further note: the "to be ___ed" translation is common for the gerundive because the gerundive is actually a future passive participle and the sense of obligation is only (strongly) implied. "(Is) to be ___ed" is also a passive construction where the sense of obligation is implicit, so Latin teachers tend to abuse it when translating gerundives. Combine that with translating ablative absolutes (common in Latin) into nominative absolutes (rare in English), and this is what you get. Ugh.) | |
| Feb 14, 2023 at 4:21 | comment | added | alphabet | @EdwinAshworth Why did they choose to write this syntactic monstrosity? Answer: because they learned Latin. Latin has an equivalent construct (an ablative absolute with a gerundive) that is idiomatic and fairly common. This is exactly how you translate such a construction very literally into English. Some Latin teachers will actually recommend or even require this painfully literal translation, since it demonstrates that you fully understand the syntax of the original Latin. | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 16:21 | comment | added | John Lawler | After a charitable event has been mentioned in the conversation, certain things become presupposed; one is the generation of proceeds, which may be mentioned anarthrously. The phrase proceeds to be shared is short for (of which the) proceeds (are) to be shared, in telegraphic/headline/advertising style, which tends to take Conversational Deletion to the clausal or phrasal level to save words and make slogans. | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 14:38 | answer | added | alphabet | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 13:00 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | (2) It wouldn't be ungrammatical, but is so formal that it would be considered faintly ridiculous in everyday speech by native speakers. | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 12:58 | history | edited | Edwin Ashworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
reformatting
|
| Feb 13, 2023 at 10:02 | comment | added | dubious | Could you please provide more of the surrounding text | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 8:55 | history | asked | Tamir | CC BY-SA 4.0 |