0
Taka Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
in relation to
It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify a target at which all violin concertos are aiming, and in relation to which one could say that concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B.
About 'in relation to which' is it:
(1) concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B in relation to the target?in relation to which a concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B
(i.e. 'in relation to the target' modifies '(got) closer')
or
(2) one could say in relation to the target?in relation to which one could say...
(i.e. 'in relation to the target' modifies '(could) say')
?
About 'in relation to which' is it:
(1) concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B in relation to the target?in relation to which a concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B
(i.e. 'in relation to the target' modifies '(got) closer')
or
(2) one could say in relation to the target?in relation to which one could say...
(i.e. 'in relation to the target' modifies '(could) say')
?
Top answer
which refers to a target (at which all violin concertos are aiming)
- which refers to a target (at which all violin concertos are aiming)
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
21 Answers
0
which refers to a target (at which all violin concertos are aiming)
00
That's not what I'm asking.
Consider:
She is the girl.+The girl said it was wrong. ?She is the girl who said it was wrong.
When a relative pronoun is used, basically two sentences are combined. Now I wonder if the sentence in question is:
It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify a target in relati
Consider:
She is the girl.+The girl said it was wrong. ?She is the girl who said it was wrong.
When a relative pronoun is used, basically two sentences are combined. Now I wonder if the sentence in question is:
It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify a target in relati
00
This is not algebra. SAY/SPELL in words what do you mean by that + sign.
00
>It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify a target at which all violin concertos are aiming, and in relation to which one could say that concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B.
The rough meaning is that:
It is impossible or pointless to define a target for interpretatation that would satisfy both conditions:
- t
The rough meaning is that:
It is impossible or pointless to define a target for interpretatation that would satisfy both conditions:
- t
00
My first impression (i.e. without reading the other replies) is:
1. It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify:
a) a target at which all violin concertos are aiming
b) a target in relation to which one could say that concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B.
MrP
1. It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify:
a) a target at which all violin concertos are aiming
b) a target in relation to which one could say that concerto A got nearer to the target than concerto B.
MrP
00
0
I think I understand what you're asking, Taka, but the closest I can get to it at the moment is this:
Could one say that concerto A got nearer to a target than concerto B? It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify such a target.
In fact, I don't personally think that the original sentence is quite right.
It would be hard if not actually senseless to
Could one say that concerto A got nearer to a target than concerto B? It would be hard if not actually senseless to specify such a target.
In fact, I don't personally think that the original sentence is quite right.
It would be hard if not actually senseless to
00
Mr WordyThis means that you're saying that A got nearer to the target than B, in relation to the target. But if A got nearer to the target than B, then obviously it's in relation to the target.That's exactly what I've been puzzled by, Mr Wordy!
So even though it's kind of redundant, if anything, 'in relation to the target' is within the scope
00
The guy says from the very beginning
It would be hard if not actually senseless
because we're dealing with a catch 22 situation.
It would be hard if not actually senseless
because we're dealing with a catch 22 situation.
00
TakaSo even though it's kind of redundant, if anything, 'in relation to the target' is within the scope of the that-clause; it doesn't modify the verb 'say.' Is that how you see it?To me it's technically ambiguous; it could be either. Compare these similarly-structured examples:
This is the hall in which I made my speech about civil liberties.
0
Related Questions