 Anonymous wrote: |
|
Can someone please help pointing out the 'disputed usages' in the following sentences:
1) He was out at a meeting and couldn't be contacted all day.
2) His second plan is not as imaginative as his first but it is more credible.
Thanks,
Eva
|
|
1.
He was out at a meeting and couldn't be contacted all day.
Well it matters what you want to say. "He was out at a meeting and couldn't be contacted all day." Here, one of the confusions comes from the fact that it looks that "and" is just a replacement for a more standard causal construction like: "He was out at a meeting what for he couldn't be contacted all day." However, using "and", the writer wittingly or not did not want to give a reason "why" he couldn't be contacted, the writer simply states two equally important things that he was at the meeting and that he couldn't be contacted.
This for example looks OK:
"He was out at dinner and he didn't like spaghetti."
"He was out at dinner and didn't like spaghetti."
The emphasis here is "didn't like spaghetti". "He was out at dinner" is easily adjusted to a standard form: "When he was out at dinner, he didn't like spaghetti." However, because of the writer's style, or style of the novel, or for other reasons, "He was out at dinner and didn't like spaghetti." is correct. I guess in a movie script this would be a very effective style of writing.
The same could be valid in our example, but there is a problem. "Being out at the meeting" and "not being available" ARE connected. A reader expects these two to be more connected than just with a simple "and".
There are even more troubles. Try this: "He couldn't be contacted all day and was out at a meeting." It hurts, doesn't it? Trouble, besides "was" without "he", is that "He couldn't be contacted" is a passive construction. And one problem we have mentioned is now very obvious. Why we have "and" between two strong sentences? We want to say why he was unreachable, or we want to say the consequence of his meeting being outside (or none of that). Which one:
"He was out at a meeting, so he couldn't be contacted all day."
"He was out at a meeting and for that reason he couldn't be contacted all day."
None of these problems is a grave problem. It is possible to use each of them to a certain extent to achieve an effect in writing. Here, together they make sentence unclear and vague.
Problems:
1. Two independent sentences are equally strong.
2. They have (or at least it is expected to have) a logical connection of causality.
3. In between we have only a neutral "and" that does not resolve anything.
4. The second sentence is in passive.
It is possible that there are more problems here, but these four (together, not individually) are sufficient to point to the carelessness of writing. (If you try to fix the sentence you can't, because you do not know what it means:
He was out at a meeting not being available all day.
Being out at a meeting, he couldn't be contacted all day.)
2.
His second plan is not as imaginative as his first but it is more credible.
First, I'll try to explain "so...as" "as...as". The standard is "as ... as". If you use "so" it is usually, they say, used with negatives. However, the trouble is deeper. "so...as" instead of "as...as" is officially accepted and widely used only in the conjunction "so long as" (52.000.000 Google usages) and "as long as" (277.000.000 Google usages).
They two are slightly different but are sufficiently similar to speak about stylish reasons to use one or another. "as ... as" repeats the same word, "so ... as" has two different words. It means that you can use "as long as" to reassure something ("as...as" - sounds like "listen to me") or you use "so long as" because you want to focus on the next part of the sentence, not on the pure conjunction or condition "as long as". I am sure that these were the reasons to introduce two similar instead of only one conjunction.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
as long as
1. During the time that: I'll stay as long as you need me. 2. Since: As long as you've offered, I accept. 3. On the condition that: I will cooperate as long as I am notified on time.
so long as
1. During the time that; while: We will stay so long as you need us. 2. Inasmuch as; since: So long as you're driving into town, why not give me a ride? 3. Provided that: I will give you the book so long as you return it.
Regarding other "so...as" instead of "so...as" construction, I claim that they are rare
as pretty as 1.530.000 Google usages (GU)
so pretty as 36.200 GU
as nice as 2.000.000 GU
so nice as 86.000 GU
There are two problems. For example, "so nice as" has the special usage that is different from "as nice as".
Today, you are so nice as you were two years ago on our wedding.
Your car is as nice as mine.
The second problem is that not all attributes have the same meaning with "as" and with "so". Think:
If I may be so bold as to suggest this.
The righteous are as bold as a lion.
Unless there are serious reasons within the realm of style, there is no reason in the current English to use "so <adjective> as" in place of "as <adjective> as". Though you may think of "as long as" and "so long as" as an exception, they are not. "As long as" is a conjunction, and "as nice as" is not. For example, if we take "long" as an adjective then it is again not recommendable to replace "His nose was not as long as the Eiffel tower." with "His nose was not so long as the Eiffel tower."
In our sentence we compare "second plan" and "first plan" and because of that we use "as imaginative as". If you think about "so imaginative as" I recommend you think as well about "so imaginative like". To put it simply "as nice as" is a comparison where both "as" belong to the expression. In "so nice as", "as" is for a comparison, but first "so" only emphases the adjective "nice" "so nice" - "very nice". I do not think we should mix these two. Here is an example of when "so...as" is used with no possible alteration:
The Economist, June 4 1988 - Forbidding fruit
"The definition must be wide enough to include most of the oranges on most of the trees, but not so wide as to encompass unripe fruit or other objects in the vicinity."
As you can see it has nothing to do with "as...as" and has a special usage.
Now, to other problems. The first example's omissions (meeting-contacted) were more style oriented. Here we have grave, we could say, errors, though again it could happen that they are useful under certain circumstances.
"His second plan is not as imaginative as his first but it is more credible."
"His second plan" - "his first plan". Because the second plan belongs to him, first one is his as well - they are in the ordered group of items of the same type (with no other person mentioned whom they might belong to). There is really no need to double "his", "the" is sufficient.
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first but it is more credible."
We say twice "it is": "[it] is imaginative" and "it is credible". There is no need for that either. It is the essential characteristic of English to tend compressing expressions, especially of the same type.
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first but more credible."
However "but" is now obviously not particularly pleasant any more.
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first (,) but rather more credible."
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first (,) rather more credible."
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first (,) only more credible."
Even this way, the trouble is in the fact that "but" requires something to oppose, "imaginative" and "credible" do not oppose each other, even if we correct the sentence by a comma: "His second plan is not as imaginative as the first, but it is more credible." Not only that "imaginative" and "credible" are not in opposition, the problem is worse because we have "more credible". "More" comparing to what? To his first plan? If it is really meant "more credible to his first plan" then the sentence is a total confusion. We read: "His second plan is less imaginative but more credible to the first." Why we use "but"? Because "less" ("not as...as") and "more" are in opposition. You can't do that. You can't decide to use the essential conjunction to merge two sentences based on the weakest possible elements in the sentences - comparisons. There are adjective to think about first. What I want to say is that this sentence must work even if we write:
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first but credible."
However, this does not work at all and is a complete mess. After "not as imaginative" we expect at least
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first but [it seems] as credible [as the one]."
So, if we keep on from this point, there is no "but" here, it is only "and" possible: "His second plan is less imaginative and more credible to the first" which means the "correct" sentence should be "His second plan is not as imaginative as the first and it is more credible." which is nonsense because we did not have a reason to merge two sentences at first.
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first and it is more credible [than the first]."
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first. It is more credible than the first."
In this case "but" is not only incorrect, it is superfluous all together.
However, we could say for example: "His second plan is not as imaginative as the first, yet it is more credible." and use a comma. From this point of view, "but" is incorrect from a logical point of view - why we use "but" if we have other better conjunctions?
There is no way of knowing what one wanted to say with this sentence. My best shot would probably be:
"His second plan is not as imaginative as the first, only more credible."
Problems:
1. Two "his"
2. Twice "it is"
3. Incorrect "more"
4. Incorrect "but" or wrong adjectives or wrong two-sentence merge
5. To justify "but" there is no opposition between adjectives "imaginative" and "credible" (especially because the first is negated and the second is affirmative) (or other strong elements in the sentences) only between "more" and "not as...as".
Hope this helps,
Aleksandar