broader

I wouldn't be surprised, Taka, to find that there is a debate among grammarians as to the implication of the commas, particularly on whether one belongs between 'interests' and 'and political'.

I will offer this for now: if 'broader' refers only to 'social ties and interest

DavkettI will offer this for now: if 'broader' refers only to 'social ties and interests', another question would form in your mind, i.e., does 'social' modify both 'ties' and 'interests', or only 't

Hi,

(I wrote this in response to the first two posts. I haven't read the last one yet)

We tried to fix in our memory those precious moments of our mother's knitting sweaters or sitting at our bedside, all the while focusing on her devotion to her family and ignoring her broader social ties, interests and political concerns.

Well, there

Dear friends,

We may say that «broader» qualifies «social ties» and «interests». It is perhaps however strange if it qualifies also «political concerns». Devotion to a family does not involve political concerns. It is therefore not possible to make the comparison which is implicit in «broader».

Clive...does anyone seriously doubt the writer intended that 'broader' should apply to all three nouns? Almost by definition, if someone has political concerns, they would be 'broader' than knitting sweaters.

Seems like goldmund doubt it, Clive...

As far as I'm concerned, I don't.

I don't think "broader" refers to "political concerns". I'd even be tempted to say it only relates to "social ties". Only these have been mentioned (family), but nobody knows or cares what she's interested in (arts, gardening, literature?) or what her political ideas are (or whether she has any). It makes me think of the film "the Bridges of Madison County"...

To those who think it's just 'interest',

Think about it. Do we ignore our mother's interests in general? Are we that indifferent??

Man...what a child...

My opinion? Yes, when you're a child you are (blissfully) unaware of your mother's interest(s). A mom is just a mom, there for you when you need her, she sometimes interferes when you don't really need/want it, and that's perfectly OK. Later, when daughters and sons get a bit older, they may wonder.

does anyone seriously doubt the writer intended that 'broader' should apply to all three nouns?

Not I. One may as well say that "her" also applies only to the first noun!

On the other hand, the passage comes off to me as a case where "broader" may not apply to any of the three, but to the general idea about to be expressed with three nouns -- hence, only refer

Jim,

When you say this:

CalifJim I would not have a problem saying in some cases that the scope of an adjective is indeterminate,

do you mean you don't cross out the possibility that 'social' modifies not only 'ties' but 'interests'?

To me, the entire text, which I posted for your information, seems to be abou