+0

Hello, everyone,

A. The street food was cheap and delicious enough for workers to eat it.

B. The street food was so cheap and delicious that workers could eat it.

C. The street food was so cheap and delicious that workers ate it.

While I have two questions below, I would much appreciate on your opinions;

1. Which has closer meaning to A between B and C?

2. Since I feel A and B are ambiguous with following dual meanings so B could be close to A, when transforming ‘enough to do’ phrase into ‘so that’ clause, is the modal verb – ‘can, may, will, etc.’ always essential?;

A. The street food was cheap and delicious enough, and workers might have eaten it or might not have done it.

B. The street food was so cheap and delicious that workers could eat it, and they might have eaten it or might not have done it.

+1

I might not be able to post, but I'll try. The system is acting strange.

CJ

+1
deepcosmos1. Which has closer meaning to A between B and C?

B

deepcosmoswhen transforming ‘enough to do’ phrase into ‘so that’ clause, is the modal verb – ‘can, may, will, etc.’ always essential;

I have never done a study of it, but there may be a linguistics article (or more than one) in one of the journals about it. My best guess is that if we took the time to research this thoroughly, we would find that the answer is a definite 'yes', but there may be a few exceptions scattered throughout the universe of possible sentences. After all, this is English, which is notorious for exceptions. Emotion: smile

CJ

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
1 2
Comments  
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

Hi, CJ, in relation to my last inquiry I’ve deduced why version with modal ‘could’ is better than [C] version without ‘could’, when transforming the ‘enough to’ phrase [A] into ‘so adjective/adverb that’ clause;

[A] The street food was cheap enough for workers to afford to buy it.

The street food was so cheap that workers could afford to buy it. (✔)

[C] The street food was so cheap that workers bought it. (✘)

And when I sum up the reasons by myself as follows, I would really appreciate, if you kindly point out my defects;

1. In these sentences above both ‘enough to’ phrase and ‘so adjective/adverb that’ clause indicate 'to such a degree that' and a to-infinitive phrase or a that-clause are functioning as a complement to qualify this predicative adjectives/adverbs. That is to say,

[A] The street food was cheap enough for workers to afford to buy it.

= The street food was cheap <to such a degree that> workers could afford to buy it. (✔)

= The street food was so cheap with that workers <with the result that> they bought it. (✘)

2. Also, the [C] version without ‘could’ can’t be an answer, since;

1) The simple past ‘bought’ means ‘one time action’ only and can’t express ‘the longer situations’, since the street food later in fact has become the pizza.

2) The [C] version might be misunderstood to the readers to be a ‘so adjective/adverb that’ clause which expresses ‘cause and effect/result’, which doesn’t coincide with the concept of ‘enough to’ phrase.

3) Even if we suppose this ‘so adjective/adverb that clause expresses ‘cause and effect or result’, the [C] version is not considered as correct one, because there is no remarkable or extraordinary comment in that clause, which is the result caused by the even in the main clause.

Would hope to hear,

deepcosmos

1. In these sentences above both ‘enough to’ phrase and ‘so adjective/adverb that’ clause indicate 'to such a degree that' and a to-infinitive phrase or a that-clause are functioning as a complement to qualify this predicative adjectives/adverbs. That is to say,

[A] The street food was cheap enough for workers to afford to buy it.

= The street food was cheap <to such a degree that> workers could afford to buy it. (✔)

= The street food was so cheap with that workers <with the result that> they bought it. (✘)

Yes. That sounds reasonable.

deepcosmos

2. Also, the [C] version without ‘could’ can’t be an answer, since;

1) The simple past ‘bought’ means ‘one time action’ only and can’t express ‘the longer situations’, since the street food later in fact has become the pizza.

I don't understand this mention of pizza. The street food ... has become pizza. It seems irrelevant to me what kind of cheap street food was offered. Also, in the given context "they bought it" can refer to multiple purchases. Maybe they bought it every day for two weeks. That scenario is consistent with the sentence.

deepcosmos2) The [C] version might be misunderstood to the readers to be a ‘so adjective/adverb that’ clause which expresses ‘cause and effect/result’, which doesn’t coincide with the concept of ‘enough to’ phrase.

The [C] version will be understood by native speakers to express 'cause and effect'. As far as I can determine, there is no misunderstanding involved.

deepcosmosthe [C] version is not considered as correct one, because there is no remarkable or extraordinary comment in that clause, which is the result caused by the word "even" ??? in the main clause.

I'm not following this. What do you mean by a remarkable or extraordinary comment? And why would such a comment be necessary to make [C] correct?

Something is wrong or missing in your final clause above. I thought you might be referring to the word "even", but there is no use of the word "even" in your example sentences, so I'm afraid I'm lost.


Basically, it seems to me that you've done a complete analysis in the first part of your post with your discussion of "to such a degree that" and "with the result that". I don't think that, as currently written, the rest of your analysis adds a lot, so if I were you, I would have stopped after the first part. However, you may want to rewrite the second part if you'd like to clarify your points and ask further questions about them.

CJ

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Hi, CJ, really appreciate your comments.

CalifJimI don't understand this mention of pizza. The street food ... has become pizza. It seems irrelevant to me what kind of cheap street food was offered. Also, in the given context "they bought it" can refer to multiple purchases. Maybe they bought it every day for two weeks. That scenario is consistent with the sentence.

I meant, the original sentence with 'enough to pattern' was one in the paragraph which introduces the history of street food becoming pizza, so I thought the past simple 'bought' expresses one time action (short, quickly finished action and happening) only and isn't suitable to do ‘the longer situations', considering the characteristic of this verb.

CalifJimI'm not following this. What do you mean by a remarkable or extraordinary comment? And why would such a comment be necessary to make [C] correct?Something is wrong or missing in your final clause above. I thought you might be referring to the word "even", but there is no use of the word "even" in your example sentences, so I'm afraid I'm lost.

Sorry it was my typo, which should have read 'event'. Though I think the sentence 'The meteor storm was so beautiful that we couldn't believe our eyes.' (underlined part is a remarkable or extraordinary comment) would be natural, the [C] 'The street food was so cheap that workers bought it.' would not be so, I think, because that clause in [C] lacks a remarkable comment.

Would hope to hear again at your convenience.

deepcosmosI meant, the original sentence with 'enough to pattern' was one in the paragraph which introduces the history of street food becoming pizza

The problem is that there was no previous mention of any paragraph about street food or pizza, so it seemed to come out of nowhere. Maybe you had originally intended to add a link to that paragraph in your original post?

deepcosmosI thought the past simple 'bought' expresses one time action

While it's true that most instances of the past tense refer only to a single instance of an event or action, it canrefer to multiple instances, so I'm afraid that any grammatical argument that depends on an association of "one-time action" with the simple past tense is going to be a faulty argument. Emotion: sad

deepcosmoslacks a remarkable comment

I would express that as "lacks a remarkable result" because you've been discussing the paraphrase "with the result that".

Nevertheless, a remarkable result is not really necessary for the constructions with "so ... that". Naturally, there's the implication that a tipping point has been reached, but that implication need not be dramatic. In fact, it can be quite ordinary: The coat was so expensive that she decided not to buy it.

Other examples (found online) where the result is not particularly remarkable:

The show is so bad that it makes the performers look bad as well.
The company had grown so large that expansion was needed.
The water is so high that you can't see how deep it is.

Of course it's a judgment call, but personally I don't think any of those results are remarkable.

deepcosmosshould have read 'event'.

OK. It seems I guessed wrong on that one! Emotion: smile

CJ

Show more