ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: as

Avangi — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:12:19 GMT

A "while" clause usually answers the question "when," although it could have other uses. But that's the way we were using it in your example. So that makes the clause adverbial in function, modifying the verb.

"Since" is more like "because," and would be followed by a reason explaining something previously mentioned in the sentence - most likely not just a verb, but an idea.

The thing about the compound subject is, Yes, all three things are burning up the paycheck. What's new is that the "since" clause now applies only to the gas (where the "while" clause applied to all three via the verb).

- A.

(I hope MrP replies.)

Re: as

New2grammar — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:03:30 GMT

Thanks Mr. P and Avangi. after going through this long and tedious but beneficial analysis,
I start to understand how native speakers interpret
long sentences, at least this particular type. I know
how important context is in any language but I never expected
it to affect this sentence as much. I have one last question
before I'd wrap up this discussion.

How switching from "as" as 'while' to 'since' affect the property
of the subordinate clause. If I understand you correctly,
'since' modifies the entire main clause but 'while'
modifies only the verb, quoting your words as follows:

It also makes it clear that the subordinate clause modifies the entire main clause rather than just the verb.

As I already said in my earlier post, I always think of
conjunctions as independent. I could be terribly wrong. I hope I'm
not entirely wrong because this is a serious mistake. Thanks in advance!

Re: as

Avangi — Sun, 04 May 2008 15:36:29 GMT

Hi N2g, I'm probably too pooped to make any sense.

After you confirmed that this was not a "stand-alone" exercise sentence, but an excerpt from a news article, I began thinking in terms of "previous context," specifically that it had already been extablished that food prices and shrinking hours were messing with his pocketbook.

So we may now consider looking at the sentence you posted as adding the third item, and then justifying the addition. (Note MrP's use of the comma.) "Since he drives etc." is the reason gas prices may be added as the third significant financial problem the man faces. It also makes it clear that the subordinate clause modifies the entire main clause rather than just the verb.

In my post prior to MrP's first one, I was starting to hedge on my analysis that the final clause modifies only the verb. His switching from "while" to "since" and his addition of the comma, makes that approach more valid, in my estimation.

Regards, - A.

Re: as

MrPedantic — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:01:52 GMT

Well, I would say that "shrinking hours and rising food costs" are also burning up his paycheck; I presume the writer put them in the separate clause because "driving hundreds of miles" does not affect their impact on his paycheck, whereas long journeys do affect the impact of gas prices.

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: as

New2grammar — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:34:51 GMT

Oh no! I'm sorry to drag on this discussion but I'm now more lost than ever :(

Let me ask this question first,

How do you interpret "In addition to X and Y, Z is ...? Is the subject X, Y and Z or just Z?

Also, I don't see how interpretingas as since will solve the problem. I understand the difference it makes, I guess I do, but it still boils down to what the subject is, X,Y and Z or just Z?

I'm really interested in finding out the answerbecause it is, I would say',not an uncommon construction.

Re: as

Avangi — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:34:41 GMT

Thanks, MrP. That solves the problem; unfortunately, just when N2g thought he had mastered the use of "as" in subordinate clauses.

Re: as

MrPedantic — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:44:57 GMT

In addition to shrinking hours and rising food costs, gas prices are burning up his paycheck as he drives his truck to jobs spread out over hundreds of miles in Southern California.

It's an interesting discussion. I myself would take "as" in this sentence as a synonym not of "while", but of "since", i.e.

"In addition to shrinking hours and rising food costs, gas prices are burning up his paycheck, since he drives his truck to jobs spread out over hundreds of miles in Southern California."

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: as

Avangi — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:33:27 GMT

Maybe one last shot at this: When you take the sentence in isolation, you have to give some weight to the introductory prepositional phrase. But if it's from a news article, as you say, the "shrinking hours and rising food costs" may have already been thoroughly discussed. The author may have considered this a bridge, or transition to the gas price thing, wishing to show the connection but not intending to emphasize it.

He might have said, "And furthermore, gas prices are - - - - - as he drives etc."

Or, "Shrinking hours and rising food costs are not the only problem. Gas prices are - - - - - - as he drives etc."

Or, "In addition to shrinking hours and rising food costs, here's another item. Gas prices etc."

IMHO the error is in constructing the sentence in a way that makes hours and food part of the subject.

Something that's new to me here at EF is the approach of treating long constructions as modifying other long constructions. If you take the approach that "In addition to shrinking hours and rising food costs" modifies everything which follows, instead of just the subject, my objection seems to melt away. What do you think?

Re: as

New2grammar — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:13:41 GMT

Actually, I''ve been reading more these days to improve my command of the language. I realize one of my many weak areas is ability to construct long sentences, ones that contain more than one clause. This is actually a sentence I picked up from a news article and it turns out to be a bad choice.But I have learned from this example how to interpret as in double clause sentences. I guess I can call it another milestone :)

Re: as

Avangi — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:52:20 GMT

You write clearly enough when you're expressing your own thoughts. I believe clear thoughts lead to clear writing. What's the impetus behind these ungodly long sentences? Is it some sort of compulsion? Or is someone giving assignments to write the longest possible sentence, using as many phrases and clauses as possible and expressing as many different ideas as possible? Or are these sentences presented in this form as an exercise to be analyzed?

Many of the confused, compound complex, etc., etc. sentences I see could be cleared up and improved if it were allowed to break them into two or three sentences, but I never know if that's permitted.

- A.

Re: as

New2grammar — Sat, 03 May 2008 08:46:49 GMT

I completely understand your point but I don't think I'm capable of constructing sentences and having to run through extensive analysis like this on the fly at the same time. Thanks, I'll keep trying till the day I die~~Thanks Avangi for the wonderful analysis!

By the way, what's the meaning of "cut me off at my knees"? I can sort of guess but I would like to know the exact meaning so next time I know how to use it.

Re: as

Avangi — Sat, 03 May 2008 08:25:59 GMT

Hi N2g, I was just kidding about the editing. Guess I'll have to learn to use the smiley faces. Please don't hesitate to disagree with me. Many ESL students have learned things I've never thought about.

Okay, you're right, "as he drives etc." is a clause, but I wouldn't say it's independent. IMHO it functions as an adverb, modifying the verb of the main clause, "are burning up" (as I said previously). Sorry I missed that it's a clause, but I think my point is still intact.

Yes, there are three independent factors effecting him financially, and the price of gas is only one of them. Unfortunately, "gas prices" is the subject of the main clause.

This is what the sentence is supposed to say: "Gas prices are burning up his paycheck." Okay?

The problem is, you have a modifying phrase preceding that, and you have a modifying clause following that. The phrase at the beginning modifies the subject, "gas prices." The clause at the end modifies the verb, "are burning up." But, these two modifiers set up an impossible conflict. You can have one, or the other, but not both.

The prepositional phrase at the beginning adds the other two factors to the subject, "gas prices."

Now we have, "Three things are burning up his paycheck." No problem! That makes sense.

Let's back up and take the other route. Forget the cost of food and the shrinking hours. Instead, let's add on the verb modifier, "as he drives, etc." Now we have, "Gas prices are burning up his paycheck as he drives etc." No problem! That makes sense.

But, what happens when we try to add the front modifier and the back modifier at the same time?

Is the cost of food burning up his paycheck as he drives? Heck, no!

Are his shrinking hours burning up his paycheck as he drives? Heck, no!

This doesn't bother you? It sure bothers me. It makes no sense.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: as

New2grammar — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:19:32 GMT

Hi Avangi, I'm sorry but I don't know when you're done replying to a post. Now, that I look back at your previous post, I realize you didn't end it with your initial and I guess that should be an indicator whether you're done or not. If so, I'll check for it next time.

I'm in no position to disagree with a native speaker but your new interpretation confuses me. I see the sentence as two independent clauses, first "In addition to rising food costs and shrinking hours, gas prices are burning up his paycheck", the second "as he drives ...". And I understand it as the three factors, rising food costs, shrinking hours, and gas prices are affecting him financially. The second clause is just giving an example of how one of the factors (in this case and usually the last factor mentioned, gas prices) affecting him. Is this acceptable to you?

Re: as

Avangi — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:37:30 GMT

N2g, I thought you knew my bad habits. I was counting on you to give me time to edit, and not cut me off at the knees. I was typing as fast as I could, but you got me.

I think there's an error in the sentence, but not quite the one you specified.

"Gas prices" is the subject of the sentence, and "as he drives etc." modifies the verb "are burning up." The introductory prepositional phrase "In addition etc." purports to modify the subject, "gas prices," and is therefore stating that shrinking hours and rising food costs are also burning up his paycheck as he drives, which is certainly not the case and shouldn't be the author's intention.

The shrinking hours burn up his figurative paycheck, in the sense that "paycheck" is often used to mean "how much you make per week on average." Business is bad. He gets paid by the hour, and he's been working fewer and fewer hours each week. This has nothing to do with his driving expenses. Neither does the cost of food.

But the three factors work together to put him in a financial bind.

Re: as

New2grammar — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:13:32 GMT

Avangi, your interpretation makes more sense. Thanks Clive and Avangi!