NP1 + we felt + NP2

Question

Please kindly help to explain the following sentences:

1) After selecting and reviewing randomly selected samples, we did not identify errors we felt warranted audit projection.

2) There was sufficient information within the international intelligence community about this individual that we felt warranted his deportation back to one of – he had dual citizenship – of one of two countries.

3) As a result of our initial searches, we identified approximately 100 citations which we felt warranted listing.

4) Some Resumania examples are so classic, we've inducted them into the "Hall of Fame." Listed here are some classics we felt warranted this distinction.

They all bear a similarity because "we felt warranted" is positioned between two noun phrases. However, I don't quite get at the relation or meaning of these two noun phrases. Is the relation a kind of cause-and-effect? Or, is one noun phrase the thing that acted, while the other the thing that is acted upon? What does the word "warrant" mean here? Does it mean "secure," "promise," or "justify"? In most cases, "warrant' serve as a transitive verb, but what is its object here--"we" or "one of the two noun phrases in each sentence"? I would appreciate it if anyone would spare a few minutes unpuzzling these questions of mine.

Conus Lotus · Accepted Answer

An excellent question.
I'm sorry I can't answer it for you, but these constructions are very sophisticated and demonstrate a great command of the language.
I hope someone better at explaining grammar can help.

Guest · Answer

I'm sorry, I disagree totally. Writing that is so "sophisticated" as to be unintelligible to native speakers does not demonstrate a "great command" of the language.

The fact that someone uses long words and complex constructions, instead of simple words and clear constructions does NOT automatically make him a good writer.

If the writing is not readily understood, the writer has FAILED, no matter how impressive his vocabulary, or elaborate his sentence structures.

Conus Lotus · Answer

Dear guest,
Are you a native speaker?
Which part do you find unintelligible? None of it is unintelligible to me, on the other hand it is very easy for me to understand.
Which part do you have trouble or take exception to or with? Are the words used really so uncommon? I don't think so. I do not believe that any native of intermediate ability would have any trouble at all with these.
Perhaps you would like to rewrite it in order to demonstrate how it may be made more digestible by those who seem to have trouble with such constructions (which I may add are fairly common).

Conus Lotus · Answer

In order to try to help the original poster, I will try to help clarify the use of 'warrant' (which in the above cases has a similar meaning to 'justify')
1...we did not identify errors we felt warranted audit projection.
....we did not find any mistakes which we thought justified audit projection.
2 .. there was sufficient information to justify his deportation
3 .. 100 citations were found, which they believed they were worthy of listing.
4 'Resumania' what does this mean? I guess it is a play on words.
Resume + Mania = resumania ; a resume written in maniacal style.
... So, some resumes were so resumaniacal that they were put into in some "Hall of fame".

Maj · Answer

I guess citations is a legal word. But let me ask you, would a court take these citations as evidence to deport this citizen? Have I used the word "citations" correctly? Thanks in advance.

Conus Lotus · Answer

Without the context it is difficult to know to which type of citation the writer refers. It is possible they are referring to some kind of award.
Citation; an official award (as for bravery or service) usually given as formal public statement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
. Maj, I think it is also likely these sentences are not actually related to each other.

Guest · Answer

To Conus Lotus (ref. your earlier post)

Yes, I am a native speaker.

OK, I will try to explain why the quoted sentences are not an outstanding example of English (in my opinion).

Please bear with me, this might be long.

Sentence No. 1

"After selecting and reviewing randomly selected samples..." This is repetitive and/or contradictory.

Did "we" select the samples, or was it random (Fate made the choice)? I suggest: "After reviewing randomly-selected samples". (I would use a hyphen with "randomly selected" as the whole phrase forms an adjective, but this is just personal taste).

"...we did not find..."

It sounds slightly odd to to use "did not" at this point. The more logical form is: "After A, B happened". Not: "After A, B did NOT happen".

We could rewrite, to use the positive form of the verb: "After reviewing randomly-selected samples, we found no errors..."

In fact, it was presumably DURING the review (not afterwards) that no errors were found.

In which case:

"During a review of randomly-selecetd samples, we found no errors..."

Or even better: "A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors..." (passive voice, not first person, is the convention for scientific writing, e.g. reporting results of a study).

"...we felt warranted..."

Again, if this is a report of a formal study (I'm not sure if it is) passive voice is more appropriate. Passive voice sounds more detached and objective. "How we felt" is not relevant in this type of writing.

So, I suggest: "A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors that warranted..."

And finally:

"...audit projection...".

What is this? I understand the word "audit". I understand the word "projection". But "audit projection" has no meaning to me, as a phrase. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps it has something to do with predicting future audit failures. Or do they mean SCHEDULING future audits (if there were sufficient errors, they would schedule one)? If so, perhaps we can simplify the whole thing to:

"A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors that warranted audit"

OR (simpler still):

"A review of randomly-selected samples found no audit was warranted"

I am tired after reviewing Sentence 1! Perhaps I could do Sentences 2 and 3 later?

Conus Lotus · Answer

I still fail to see why you claimed unintelligability.
Granted there is repetition of one word in the first sentence, but it is pretty obvious this is not a formal work, and I think you are (for some reason I don't understand) being overly picky.
I too am pressed for time, but I will try to review your other, unduly picky (in my opinion) criticisms tomorrow.
I do thank you for finally offering some constructive comment on the original post (even if it is in my opinion picky).

Guest · Answer

I have intentionally gone into a lot of detail, because this is a learning forum. I would not be so "picky" if I were reviewing the document at work, for example. I would probably just underline the sentence, and write: "What does this mean?"

And I think, on the contrary, it IS a formal work. It seems to be the result of a study or investigation of some kind.

Even if you reject nearly all of my comments, the sentence still fails overall, because of doubts over what is meant by "audit projection". It should not be left to the reader to guess what this means, but essentially, that's the only way I can make sense of it.

Conus Lotus · Answer

The term 'audit projection' is obviously some kind of professional jargon, the meaning of which is almost certainly understood by the intended recipient. Since the readers at EnglishForward.com are not, we can safely assume, the intended recipients (or audience), the writer has not necessarily been negligent on this point.
I am still perplexed as to why the sentences were labelled 'unintelligable' by the first two respondents (you 'guest' may or may not have been one of them), in brash and uncontructive comments which were, thankfully, deleted by the moderators.

NP1 + we felt + NP2

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions