0
Taka Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
apposition?
Our fairy-tales, with their helpful animals, talking birds and wise reptiles, are fossilized remains of a period when animals took equal place with man and were sometimes messengers or servants of the hidden gods. So today it may be seen a great many of our superstitions about birds and animals are based on their supposed wisdom, cunning or magical powers rather than their inferiority in the scheme of things.
About their helpful animals, talking birds and wise reptiles, my book says talking birds and wise reptiles are the restatement of helpful animals (i.e. apposition). Is it really true? To me, in this particular case, animals are different from birds and reptiles, and they are just a series of creatures.
What do you think, teachers?
About their helpful animals, talking birds and wise reptiles, my book says talking birds and wise reptiles are the restatement of helpful animals (i.e. apposition). Is it really true? To me, in this particular case, animals are different from birds and reptiles, and they are just a series of creatures.
What do you think, teachers?
Top answer
I agree with you. I see it as having three elements there, the animals in general, the birds, and the reptiles. Not one, with two in apposition.
- I agree with you.
- I see it as having three elements there, the animals in general, the birds, and the reptiles.
- Not one, with two in apposition.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
13 Answers
0
I agree with you. I see it as having three elements there, the animals in general, the birds, and the reptiles. Not one, with two in apposition.
00
0
Grammar GeekI agree with you. I see it as having three elements there, the animals in general, the birds, and the reptiles. Not one, with two in apposition.So is it safe to say that the animals here are the warm-blooded mammals?
00
No, it's just a more general category to me. I don't understand it only to mean mammals.
00
Grammar GeekNo, it's just a more general category to me. I don't understand it only to mean mammals.For your information:
animal
• noun 1 a living organism which feeds on organic matter, has specialized sense organs and nervous system, and is able to move about and to respond rapidly to stimuli. 2 a mammal,
00
That's one definition from the dictionary, but if you say to a child "Let's go to the zoo and see the animals" and your first stop is the reptile house or the bird area, the child won't say "I thought you said we were going to see animals!" Those ARE animals, as are the elephants, the otters, the octopus, etc.
00
If the animals here were that general, birds and reptiles would also be included, and it would follow that they might be in apposition with the animals (i.e. with the helpful animals, (such as) talking birds and wise reptiles).
Plus, don't you think the idea of 'helpfulness' is somehow related to the 'warm' blood, in a figurative sense?
Plus, don't you think the idea of 'helpfulness' is somehow related to the 'warm' blood, in a figurative sense?
00
TakaOur fairy-tales, with their helpful animals, talking birds and wise reptiles
I would take this as a rhetorical device (general for particular: a variety of synecdoche). The writer assumes that the reader has some knowledge of fairy tales, and their characteristic fauna; we are not supposed to think "shield bug" or "okapi"
00
MrPedanticIn other words, the writer provides empty classes which readers can populate themselves, from their experience of fairy tales.Let me make sure one thing, MrP.
Even so, grammatically speaking, the talking birds and wise reptiles are NOT placed as explanatory equivalents for the helpful animals (i.e apposition); it's not:
th
00
Perhaps my understanding of apposition is flawed, but I didn't think that a "such as" counts as apposition. I thought it has to be equivalent. Am I wrong about that?
0
Related Questions