+0
This question derives from a previous thread.

"The analysis of these issues will let us both better understand the nature of the Pyrrhonean outlook and assess its coherence."

Now, if I decide to use "allow", what should I say:

"The analysis of these issues will allow us to both better understand the nature of the Pyrrhonean outlook and assess its coherence."

"The analysis of these issues will allow us both to better understand the nature of the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence."

"The analysis of these issues will allow us both to understand better the nature of the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence." (In this example, the problem is actually the position of "better").

Cheers,

Sextus
1 2
Comments  
I'd choose your first version.
Do you need the word both?

The analysis of these issues will allow us to better understand the nature of the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence.

Or, since its might have an indefinite antecedent (nature or outlook?), what about--

The analysis of these issues will allow us to better understand the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence.

(We don't know what these issues have covered.) I'm not sure what distinction is implied between understanding the outlook and understanding the nature of the outlook. Does these issues speak to such a distinction?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
The whole thing was in a different thread. I'll copy it:

"The purpose of the present paper is twofold. First, to examine what beliefs, if any, underlie (a) the Pyrrhonist’s desire for ataraxia and his account of how this state may be attained, and (b) his philanthropic therapy, which seeks to induce epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists by argument. Second, to determine whether the Pyrrhonist’s philanthropia and his search for and attainment of ataraxia are, as scholars have generally believed, essential aspects of his stance. The analysis of these issues will allow us to better understand the (nature of the) Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence. This is important especially because Pyrrhonism is a philosophy that may still be found attractive and worth adopting."

1) By using "nature" I suppose I intend to take into account that I'll examine if the two aspects mentioned are essential to Pyrrhonism. I thought it was clear that "coherence" refers to "outlook", since what one may assess is whether an outlook is coherent.

2) Once I was told that one shouldn't separte "to" from the "verb". If this is so, "better" should go after "understand".

Sextus
Sextus, hello!

I may be wrong but I like the last of your versions most of all. Because I also think "better" should go after the verb.
Sextus I thought it was clear that "coherence" refers to "outlook", since what one may assess is whether an outlook is coherent.

Most readers would take it that way, I'm sure. I did. But the more I thought about the phrase 'nature of', the more I thought of the possibility that the nature of [something]could be assessed for coherency. It seems to me that if there is a difference between an outlook, and the nature of an outlook, then each may be assessed for its coherency.

(I fear this might be too nit-picky, though.)

I believe there was a thread way back when that called the 'split-infinitive' rule archaic.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Split-infinitive:

Also: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/059.html , particularly: Remember too that infinitive phrases in which the adverb precedes a participle, such as to be rapidly rising, to be clearly understood, and to have been ruefully mistaken, are not split and should be acceptable to everybody.
Thanks for the links, Davkett. They're very useful.

And thanks for your comments as well.

Sextus
Davkett, thank you for the links. But that information is about American English, isn't it? And I am not sure I can apply the same rules in British English.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more