0
SuperESL Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Cast light on
Some questions on the use of the phrase 'cast light on':
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on why they became extinct."
A dictionary I use defines 'cast light on' as meaning 'to make a problem etc. easier to understand' and gives the above example by way of illustration. I think this application of the phrase rather loose, as the discovery of the dinosaur skeleton in itself doesn't tell you - doesn't 'cast light on' - anything; only the analysis of the skeleton would. Certainly, the chance to analyze the skeleton flows from its discovery so the discovery does afford the occasion for a better understanding of why the dinosaur became extinct. But, still, I think there is a gap in the logic of the sentence. Am I over-analyzing here? Perhaps this phrase is used by convention in such a way?
To test the said dictionary meaning of the phrase I've constructed the following example:
"The fear of mutually assured destruction makes it easier to understand why the Cold War stayed cold." (which sounds fine)
"The fear of mutually assured destruction casts light on why the Cold War stayed cold." (which sounds less fine to my ears)
"The fear of losing the general election makes it easier to understand why the Obama administration has gone on the offensive in foreign affairs." (which sounds fine)
"The fear of losing the general election casts light on why the Obama administration has gone on the offensive in foreign affairs." (which sounds less fine to my ears)
Another question. Must 'cast light on' be followed by 'why,' 'the reason,' etc? Can it be used as in the following example:
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on the extinction of these colossi." ?
Thank you for your attention and comments.
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on why they became extinct."
A dictionary I use defines 'cast light on' as meaning 'to make a problem etc. easier to understand' and gives the above example by way of illustration. I think this application of the phrase rather loose, as the discovery of the dinosaur skeleton in itself doesn't tell you - doesn't 'cast light on' - anything; only the analysis of the skeleton would. Certainly, the chance to analyze the skeleton flows from its discovery so the discovery does afford the occasion for a better understanding of why the dinosaur became extinct. But, still, I think there is a gap in the logic of the sentence. Am I over-analyzing here? Perhaps this phrase is used by convention in such a way?
To test the said dictionary meaning of the phrase I've constructed the following example:
"The fear of mutually assured destruction makes it easier to understand why the Cold War stayed cold." (which sounds fine)
"The fear of mutually assured destruction casts light on why the Cold War stayed cold." (which sounds less fine to my ears)
"The fear of losing the general election makes it easier to understand why the Obama administration has gone on the offensive in foreign affairs." (which sounds fine)
"The fear of losing the general election casts light on why the Obama administration has gone on the offensive in foreign affairs." (which sounds less fine to my ears)
Another question. Must 'cast light on' be followed by 'why,' 'the reason,' etc? Can it be used as in the following example:
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on the extinction of these colossi." ?
Thank you for your attention and comments.
Top answer
I agree with your findings. It's not the fear or the discovery that casts the light. But can't we treat it as a sort of personification?
- I agree with your findings.
- It's not the fear or the discovery that casts the light.
- But can't we treat it as a sort of personification?
- The discovery/fear has led to the casting of light.
- The discovery/fear has caused light to be cast.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
I agree with your findings. It's not the fear or the discovery that casts the light.
But can't we treat it as a sort of personification? The discovery/fear has led to the casting of light.
The discovery/fear has caused light to be cast. The discovery/fear is doing this thing.
I find it more palatable when we use the perfect tense: The fear has
But can't we treat it as a sort of personification? The discovery/fear has led to the casting of light.
The discovery/fear has caused light to be cast. The discovery/fear is doing this thing.
I find it more palatable when we use the perfect tense: The fear has
00
Thank you for your prompt response.
I, too, think that it's better when the perfect tense is used. But then the perfect tense doesn't seem to work very well in the examples that I made up (or does it?):
"The fear of mutually assured destruction has cast light on why the Cold War stayed cold."
"The fear of losing the general election has cast light on why th
I, too, think that it's better when the perfect tense is used. But then the perfect tense doesn't seem to work very well in the examples that I made up (or does it?):
"The fear of mutually assured destruction has cast light on why the Cold War stayed cold."
"The fear of losing the general election has cast light on why th
00
SuperESLI think there is a gap in the logic of the sentence.I think as you do. It is not too bad, but I would recast.
I don't like "why' the way you're using it. You are asking the reader to construe the "why" clause as a noun before he has even read it, and that is asking too much of, well, me. I'd like to see "the reason that" or "the question of"
00
Thank you so much.
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on the reasons behind the extinction of these colossi." does sound better. Thanks.
"The discovery of the dinosaur skeleton has cast light on the reasons behind the extinction of these colossi." does sound better. Thanks.
0
Related Questions