+0
The chapter argues the need for a policy on the part of the international
community which distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis – where it is argued that the appropriate response will be the provision of finance, within the constraints available, supplemented, if need be, by lending, by capital flow standstills and by lending into arrears.

Can you reformulate the sentence above to make it clear what are the elements of the parallelism if there is any?

It is from a book called "The IMF and it critics" co-authored by several people.
1 2
Comments  
Hi, Anon. What there lacks in parallelism is made up in other ways. << co-authored by several people >> I wonder how many it took? Must it be only one sentence?

IMHO "parallelism" is a broad term and the presence of the quality is better known by its absence, as you suggest.

The chapter urges that the international community, in seeking to help countries in financial trouble, must first determine if the country is broke, or simply has a cash flow problem.

Best regards, - A.
Thank you for your prompt response.

However, it seems to me that there is a grammatical error still.

"distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis"

This part seems grammatically incorrect. Am I correct?

Thank you.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Things can work grammatically and not at all stylistically. You're right. They are distinguishing between countries and solutions, which semantically is nonsense.

They need to distinguish between countries with condition x and countries with condition y, or solutions for countries with condition x and solutions for countries with condition y.

I'd love to say "But don't worry about it, because their meaning is made clear as you go along," but this writing is a convoluted mess and I'm sure the authors feel very proud of themselves for having written in such an oblique manner.
Thank you.

However, I don't understand how it is correct grammatically. I don't understand the distinction you have mentioned. Can you explain?
Anonymous "distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis"
distinguishes (verb) between A and B (prepositional phrase)

between countries (noun) and the solution (noun) - Are you objecting because one is singular and one is plural? Other than that, the lack of parallelism is contextual.

Perhaps you object to the fact that "countries" has two separate clause modifiers, while "solution" has one phrase modifier. I shouldn't think that would qualify as a lack of parallelism, but I could be wrong.

I can't distinguish between a little donkey and a big strong hairy old black gelding with a broken leg. Do you feel that this represents lack of parallelism??

I would say it's parallel both grammatically and contextually (as GG says, "stylistically"). We're comparing two different four-legged animals, at least.

I can't distinguish between a donkey and the pain I had in my stomach last night. This is okay grammatically, but in terms of meaning, the words make no sense, because they're comparing things which can't be compared.

Best regards, - A.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I'm sorry, but I do disagree.

It's distinguishing between A and B. A and B should be the same sort of thing for semantic parallelism.

A could be countries with condition X while B is countries with condition Y.

A could be is solutions for countries of type X and B could be solutions for countries of type Y.

As it stands now, it tries to distinguish between countries and solutions. It doesn't work.
AvangiI can't distinguish between a donkey and the pain I had in my stomach last night. This is okay grammatically, but in terms of meaning, the words make no sense, because they're comparing things which can't be compared.
A good example of something that works grammatically -- they are both noun phrases -- but not semantically.
Hi, GG, there was a missing link there somewhere. My understanding was that he accepted that there was a logical error, but he felt you were saying that it was alright grammatically. He then asked if you could explain that.

So I, in my profound innocence, was trying to show that it was okay grammatically, not logically. I should have copied in his last post! When will I ever learn? Maybe I'm still missing something.
I think you are right on second thought.

However, do you agree that this sentence is incorrect or do you think it is some form of figure of speech?
Grammar GeekI'm sorry, but I do disagree.

It's distinguishing between A and B. A and B should be the same sort of thing for semantic parallelism.

A could be countries with condition X while B is countries with condition Y.

A could be is solutions for countries of type X and B could be solutions for countries of type Y.

As it stands now, it tries to distinguish between countries and solutions. It doesn't work.
AvangiI can't distinguish between a donkey and the pain I had in my stomach last night. This is okay grammatically, but in terms of meaning, the words make no sense, because they're comparing things which can't be compared.
A good example of something that works grammatically -- they are both noun phrases -- but not semantically.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more