0

The following sentence is quoted from the preface of this book.

Insisting on the subtle aspects and developments of no-arbitrage theory more than is necessary would take space from the other theory we need to address in the book and that is more important for our purposes.

I have difficulty to understand the sentence precisely. Is there an inversion in the sentence? How can I rewrite it into simple sentences?

4
  • 1
    "The reader shouldn't insist on the subtle developments in no-arbitrage theory. It would take space from the theory that I really want to talk about."
    – rajah9
    Mar 16 '20 at 12:13
  • 1
    It's definitely written in an obscure style.
    – Hot Licks
    Mar 16 '20 at 12:16
  • Hello, newy. Unravelling complete sentences / comprehension is really off-topic. However. << There are two theories we need to address in [this] book. One is [the?] no-arbitrage theory, which contains subtle aspects and has had subtle developments. But in this book, our purpose is to focus on the other theory [and we consider this more important overall{?}]. We shall only devote the space we consider absolutely necessary to [the intricacies of] [the] no-arbitrage theory, as we need to maintain our focus. >> Mar 16 '20 at 12:17
  • Insisting on [something] more than is necessary would take space [from the other theory] and [take space] that is more important for our purposes. Mar 16 '20 at 15:19
1

There is no inversion. The subject of the verbal form "would take" is "the gerund phrase "Insisting on the subtle aspects and developments of no-arbitrage theory more than is necessary", which functions as a noun, and the demonstrative "that" has for antecedent "the other theory we need to address in the book".

1
  • +1 Heavy subjects and main verbs that don't occur until the second line always confuse people. Mar 16 '20 at 16:41

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .