0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Comparative
Hi,
Exercise though seems to slow or reverse the brain’s physical decay, much as it does with muscles.
I think the verb phrase previously introduced is the antecedent of "does", as shown in the following example.
We treat our apprentices better than they do their career employees.
The sentence is making a comparison between how well we treat our apprentices and how they treat their career employees. Here the verb "treat" is repeated in the comparative clause, so it is replaced by "do". And since contrastive elements are outside the scope of "do", "their career employees" is not deleted.
Q1) In the original example, what exactly is the antecedent of "does"?
Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version? Why was the original verson chosen over the following version?
Exercise though seems to slow or reverse the brain's physical decay as much as it does with muscles.
I'd appreciate your help.
Exercise though seems to slow or reverse the brain’s physical decay, much as it does with muscles.
I think the verb phrase previously introduced is the antecedent of "does", as shown in the following example.
We treat our apprentices better than they do their career employees.
The sentence is making a comparison between how well we treat our apprentices and how they treat their career employees. Here the verb "treat" is repeated in the comparative clause, so it is replaced by "do". And since contrastive elements are outside the scope of "do", "their career employees" is not deleted.
Q1) In the original example, what exactly is the antecedent of "does"?
Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version? Why was the original verson chosen over the following version?
Exercise though seems to slow or reverse the brain's physical decay as much as it does with muscles.
I'd appreciate your help.
Top answer
-- Exercise Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version? - 'Much as' is not a comparative form (or it is no longer one); it is an idiom meaning 'similarly, in a similar way'.
- -- Exercise Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version?
- - 'Much as' is not a comparative form (or it is no longer one); it is an idiom meaning 'similarly, in a similar way'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Q1) In the original example, what exactly is the antecedent of "does"?-- Exercise
Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version?- 'Much as' is not a comparative form (or it is no longer one); it is an idiom meaning 'similarly, in a similar way'.
Q2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version?- 'Much as' is not a comparative form (or it is no longer one); it is an idiom meaning 'similarly, in a similar way'.
00
jooneyQ1) In the original example, what exactly is the antecedent of "does"?'slow or reverse' In this configuration, do (does, did) is sometimes called a Pro-Verb (analogous to 'pronoun', a noun substitute).
jooneyQ2) What is the difference in meaning between the original version and the following version? Why was the original
00
0
Thank you for your reply, CJ.
'slow or reverse' In this configuration, do (does, did) is sometimes called a Pro-Verb (analogous to 'pronoun', a noun substitute).
I thought about "slow or reverse" being the candidate for the antecedent of "does", but when you let it take the place of "does", it doesn't come out as nicely as my second exam
'slow or reverse' In this configuration, do (does, did) is sometimes called a Pro-Verb (analogous to 'pronoun', a noun substitute).
I thought about "slow or reverse" being the candidate for the antecedent of "does", but when you let it take the place of "does", it doesn't come out as nicely as my second exam
00
jooneyhow you go from "it slows or reverses the physical decay of muscles", which is the full version to "it does with muscles". I don't understand in particular the presence of the preposition "with".An odd sort of construction, isn't it?
'with' here means 'in the case of'. To be very exact, we may have to refine our analysis by saying that the ful
00
Related Questions