Emergent curiosity - Syntax of English

Question

Is this sentence grammatically correct?"Privacy of celebrities is easy to be exposed." Please, check these variations also."It is easy that privacy of celebrities is exposed.""It is easy for privacy of celebrities to be exposed." I need help; deep and profound explanation from someone majoring English education.

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

None of these are grammatically quite right. There is also the problem that "exposed" is not really the correct word here. You could use "invaded" or "violated":

"It is easy for the privacy of celebrities to be violated."

"The privacy of celebrities is easily violated."

Ivanhr · Answer

Hi Anon

If you still want to use 'exposed'

The privacy of celebrities is often exposed in the media. or

It is easy for the privacy of celebrities to be exposed to the media.

Mr Wordy · Answer

Ivanhr
The privacy of celebrities is often exposed in the media. or

It is easy for the privacy of celebrities to be exposed to the media.

Personally, I still do not think that "exposed" is correct here (not in the sense intended). If the media "exposed" someone's privacy, then, to me, this would mean that they publicised, in a sensational way, the fact that that person enjoyed privacy.

Ivanhr · Answer

I think that media exposure is not always/(necessarily) a bad thing. Somehow I assumed that he wanted to correlate the media with exposure. But I could be wrong here.

Mr Wordy · Answer

IvanhrI think that media exposure is not always/(necessarily) a bad thing. Somehow I assumed that he wanted to correlate the media with exposure. But I could be wrong here.

To me, it's not so much a question of whether exposure is a good or bad thing, it's that "exposing" something (in this sense) means making that thing publicly known. For example, by exposing someone's crimes you make their crimes publicly known, and by exposing someone's private life you make their private life publicly known.

To me, exposing someone's privacy logically means that you make public the fact that they are private or have privacy (compare, for example, exposing someone's hypocrisy). It doesn't (to me) logically mean that you expose their private life (which was surely what the OP intended).

Ivanhr · Answer

Mr Wordy
IvanhrI think that media exposure is not always/(necessarily) a bad thing. Somehow I assumed that he wanted to correlate the media with exposure. But I could be wrong here.

To me, it's not so much a question of whether exposure is a good or bad thing, it's that "exposing" something (in this sense) means making that thing publicly known. For example, by exposing someone's crimes you make their crimes publicly known, and by exposing someone's private life you make their private life publicly known.

To me, exposing someone's privacy logically means that you make public the fact that they are private or have privacy (compare, for example, exposing someone's hypocrisy). It doesn't (to me) logically mean that you expose their private life (which was surely what the OP intended).

I think I know what you mean now. Even though privacy and private life are two different things, their meanings do overlap sometimes. Anyway, it's best practice not to use privacy in place of private life if the latter is what you want to express.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

It's my two cents. To me, the original question wasn't wrong grammatically. However, syntactically, "privacy" naturally is often associated with invasion, and "secret" or "one's dark past" is associated with "exposure". For learners whose daily lives are not immersed in English, it's rather easy to perceive "expose one's privcay" is completely grammatical.

What Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinski behind his office was a dark secret exposed.

If you phone line is tapped by someone, then your privacy is invaded.

Emergent curiosity - Syntax of English

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions