0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Fused relative
Hi,
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
ex2) Ms. Houston arrived at the hotel with what Lieutenant Rosen described as an entourage of friends and family, some of whom were in the hotel suite at the time.
ex3) Lieutenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct what he said was a full-scale investigation into the death.
The parts in red bold are examples of fused relative clauses. The sentences in which the fused relatives are embeded are derived from the following procedures:
ex1)
A: She became someone.
B: She described someone as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
1. Combining these two sentences into one with the relativised element being "someone" gives you:
She became someone that she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
2. Now replacing the "someone that" part with "what" gives you:
She became what she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine, which is the final outcome.
Q1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical)
Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms. Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?
I notice that in the fused relative phrase of example 1, the quotation marks were put around the word "heavy".
Q3) Is there a reason for doing this?
Q4) As for example 3, isn't it true that the fused relative phrase is somewhat redundant? Couldn't the whole sentence have been written as the following?
Lietenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct a full-scale investigation into the death.
I don't know why the writer had to emphasize that "a full-scale investigation into the death" was the actual wording of Rosen when you already know the "that-clause" is an indirect reported speech. Does it have something to do with the fact that an indirect reported speech isn't necessarily a representation of someone's actual wording?
I'd appreciate your help.
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
ex2) Ms. Houston arrived at the hotel with what Lieutenant Rosen described as an entourage of friends and family, some of whom were in the hotel suite at the time.
ex3) Lieutenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct what he said was a full-scale investigation into the death.
The parts in red bold are examples of fused relative clauses. The sentences in which the fused relatives are embeded are derived from the following procedures:
ex1)
A: She became someone.
B: She described someone as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
1. Combining these two sentences into one with the relativised element being "someone" gives you:
She became someone that she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
2. Now replacing the "someone that" part with "what" gives you:
She became what she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine, which is the final outcome.
Q1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical)
Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms. Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?
I notice that in the fused relative phrase of example 1, the quotation marks were put around the word "heavy".
Q3) Is there a reason for doing this?
Q4) As for example 3, isn't it true that the fused relative phrase is somewhat redundant? Couldn't the whole sentence have been written as the following?
Lietenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct a full-scale investigation into the death.
I don't know why the writer had to emphasize that "a full-scale investigation into the death" was the actual wording of Rosen when you already know the "that-clause" is an indirect reported speech. Does it have something to do with the fact that an indirect reported speech isn't necessarily a representation of someone's actual wording?
I'd appreciate your help.
Top answer
I think the reason for the quotations marks around "heavy" is because she was apparently not just a heavy user but an off- the-charts user who made heavy users look like moderate users. The usage in the article is correct for the context. ", "what Lt.
- I think the reason for the quotations marks around "heavy" is because she was apparently not just a heavy user but an off- the-charts user who made heavy users look like moderate users.
- The usage in the article is correct for the context.
- ", "what Lt.
- " are for effect and sensationalism.
- This titillates the reader and makes it appear like there could be much more to this story than meets the eye.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
I think the reason for the quotations marks around "heavy" is because she was apparently not just a heavy user but an off- the-charts user who made heavy users look like moderate users.
The usage in the article is correct for the context. The use of the constructions "what she described as...", "what Lt. Rosen described as...", and "what he said was a..." are for effect and sensationalis
The usage in the article is correct for the context. The use of the constructions "what she described as...", "what Lt. Rosen described as...", and "what he said was a..." are for effect and sensationalis
00
Thank you for the reply, Anonymous.
This titillates the reader and makes it appear like there could be much more to this story than meets the eye. That is: "This is what so-and-so said, but there may be much more to it than that."
Could you elaborate on this a little more? I'd appreciate it.
This titillates the reader and makes it appear like there could be much more to this story than meets the eye. That is: "This is what so-and-so said, but there may be much more to it than that."
Could you elaborate on this a little more? I'd appreciate it.
0
Related Questions