Much is at stake
“PEN has warned them that to act against me would be to violate academic freedom. If a university can censure a teacher for quoting James Baldwin and raising with graduate students – students who are aspiring writers – the issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer, then surely much is threatened and much is at stake, for thousands of people teaching throughout this country,” she said.
(The Guardian.)
Is "much" a noun in then surely much is threatened and much is at stake in the passage above?
Isn't it a bit awkward to put the complement the issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer farther from the transitive "raising", the head of the VP, in the non-finite clause?
Top answer
The issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer is best called a direct object for clarity (though it is a subtype of complement). I can't see anything awkward about the structure. The sentence is well-formed and easy to understand.
- The issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer is best called a direct object for clarity (though it is a subtype of complement).
- I can't see anything awkward about the structure.
- The sentence is well-formed and easy to understand.
- "Much" is not a noun.
- It belongs to the category determinative.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer is best called a direct object for clarity (though it is a subtype of complement).
I can't see anything awkward about the structure. The sentence is well-formed and easy to understand.
"Much" is not a noun. It belongs to the category determinative. In your example it functions as a special kind of fused-h
0Is "much" a noun in then surely much is threatened and much is at stake in the passage above? Yes, it is.
Isn't it a bit awkward to put the complement the issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer farther from the transitive "raising", the head of the VP, in the non-finite clause? It doesn't seem awkward to me. I think it's quite well-writ
0tkacka15Isn't it a bit awkward to put the complement the issues involved in changing the words of an iconic American writer farther from the transitive "raising", the head of the VP, in the non-finite clause?
Yes, a bit. We are normally told that nothing must intervene between a verb and its direct object — or that complements are always placed clos
0
Related Questions