Reference

1 2
   Share on Facebook  
Taka  #170000  Thu, 15 Dec 05 03:48 AM
Japan is very much like the USA in the proprotions of electricity-generation sources, dominated by heat-power generation.

About 'dominated', which does it refer to; 'Japan' or 'the
proprotions of electricity-generation sources'?
  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Sep 7 2004
Japan
Senior Member (2,351)
rishonly  #170009  Thu, 15 Dec 05 04:38 AM
The modifier 'dominated...'  goes with the subject 'Japan'.
  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Sat, Mar 5 2005
KUMBAKONAM,INDIA
Contributing Member (1,781)
Moderator
Regards, Krish
Clive  #170015  Thu, 15 Dec 05 04:50 AM

Hi Taka,

Japan is very much like the USA in the proprotions of electricity-generation sources, dominated by heat-power generation.

About 'dominated', which does it refer to; 'Japan' or 'the proprotions of electricity-generation sources'?

I've learned that it's a bit risky to offer the first opinion about your 'simple questions', but here goes.

I don't see the sentence as well written.

I think 'dominated' is meant to refer to 'sources', since surely only sources can be dominated by one kind of source? However, if it refers to sources, I suggest the comma should be omitted.

I wouldn't even try to read it as referring just to Japan. If you wanted to go in that direction, I think you'd have to try to read it as referring to both Japan and the USA, since they are both linked in the thought.

The main thing that bothers me, that I find confuses the meaning, is the use of the word 'proportions'. If you speak of this, you need to speak of two things, of 'the proportion of A to B'. What are the two things here? Does it mean that Japan and the USA have the same number of such sources? Then just say number. Or does it mean that, in Japan, the proportion of electricity sources to grammarians is the same as the like proportion in the USA? The sentence is very lacking in information to explain what it means by 'proportion'.

Let's see what other thoughts people have to offer.

Best wishes, Clive 

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004
Canada
Veteran Member (22,485)
ModeratorTeachers
El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo
CalifJim  #170055  Thu, 15 Dec 05 08:34 AM
I think that in order to understand what refers to what, one must first understand the sentence.
Personally, I can't make any sense of it!
I don't have a sense of what it would mean to be dominated by heat-power generation, whether it was Japan, the USA, the proportion, or the sources that are so dominated!
Semantically, I don't see how a proportion could be dominated, unless figuratively, so I'm somewhat inclined to eliminate "proportion" as a choice.  And yet ...  Tongue Tied [:S]

CJ

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member (17,714)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
Taka  #170172  Thu, 15 Dec 05 04:17 PM
Glad to know that I'm not the only one who got confused by the sentence.Smile [:)]
  
davkett  #170187  Thu, 15 Dec 05 05:14 PM

My guess, on a semantic level, is that Japan and the United States are alike in the proportion of electric-generated sources used for heating.  That heat dominates the full range of uses powered by electricity.

Thus dominated ought to refer to proportions.  Is it really grammatically correct, though, to say that something can 'dominate proportions'?  If for instance, 10% of electric-generated sources is for lighting, 20% for power equipment, and 70% for heating, can we correctly say that heat-generation dominates the proportions? 

 

  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Jun 7 2005
Pennsylvania, USA
Senior Member (2,788)
Proficient Speaker
"The rose stays fresh in its name..." -Bernard of Morlay
MrPedantic  #170311  Fri, 16 Dec 05 02:14 AM

 Taka wrote:
Japan is very much like the USA in the proprotions of electricity-generation sources, dominated by heat-power generation.

About 'dominated', which does it refer to; 'Japan' or 'the
proprotions of electricity-generation sources'?

I'd say "sources" too.

Let's say there are 3 things that generate electricity ("electricity-generation sources"): heat-power generation, X, and Y.

Let's then say that the proportion of total Japanese electricity production that each produces is 70%, 20%, and 10% respectively.

Then "heat-power generation" would be the dominant Japanese source of electricity.

Not that I have a clue what it means.

MrP

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,167)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
davkett  #170454  Fri, 16 Dec 05 02:31 PM

 Clive wrote:

The main thing that bothers me, that I find confuses the meaning, is the use of the word 'proportions'. If you speak of this, you need to speak of two things

Clive, I tend, likewise, to prefer this definition of the word proportion;  however, it seems (at least, according to Merriam-Webster) that one of the valid uses is percentage, which appears to be the obvious context here.

The only reasonable thing we can do with this badly worded sentence, is to read between the words for the most likely meaning.  Heat-power is generated from the source, as are other types of power requiring electricity as a source.  A higher percentage of that source goes into heat generation.  What heat-generation dominates is the total distribution of electrically-generated power.  Neither source nor proportion seems a viable referent of the word dominated

 

 

  
davkett  #170456  Fri, 16 Dec 05 02:33 PM
 MrPedantic wrote:

Then "heat-power generation" would be the dominant Japanese source of electricity.

MrP,

Are you sure you want to say that?

 

  
1 2
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service