0
Taka Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

difference

What semantic difference do you think there is between the two below?

(1)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.

(2)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living and that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.
  

Top answer

Taka (1)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog. (2)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living and that which has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog. The first sentence is nonsensical in that a way of living , which is the antecedent of the relative that , cannot become domestic.

— Cool Breeze

  • Taka (1)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.
  • (2)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living and that which has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.
  • The first sentence is nonsensical in that a way of living , which is the antecedent of the relative that , cannot become domestic.
  • The second sentence with the coordinating and is grammatically correct but I would prefer not to change the relative; in other words, I would use which instead of that .
  • CB
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
Taka(1)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.

(2)There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living and that which has become dom
0
0
 I wonder if 'its whole way of living has become domestic' really makes sense at all. Does it?
0
0
TakaI wonder if 'its whole way of living has become domestic' really makes sense at all. Does it?

That isn't the issue. In sentence 2, it's the dog that has become domestic.
CB
0
0
AH! Now I see what you mean. You are saying in #1 a way of living is the antecedent of the relative pronoun 'that' and it doesn't make sense. I agree that it wouldn't make sense IF the antecendent were 'a way of living'. But I don't think it's the antecedent.
CB, are you familiar with this kind of construction?
She is the only girl (that) I know who/that is suited for the
0
0
TakaCB, are you familiar with this kind of construction?
She is the only girl (that) I know who/that is suited for the job.


Yes, sorry. I misunderstood the original sentence completely.
0

Related Questions