'Piece' as Adjective.

Question

Hi,I am using piece in a sentence as an adjective; is this permissable?"To understand the substance of Foreign Policy it is necessary to recognize the broad, expansive elements of the practice as well as the piece elements."I am using it to mean, "the elements that make up Foreign Policy".Keith LittleE-mail munged.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I am using piece in a sentence as an adjective; is this permissable? "To understand the substance of Foreign ... practice as well as the piece elements." I am using it to mean, "the elements that make up Foreign Policy".[/nq]
I woiuldn't tend to use "elements" that way.
How about...
"...recognize the broad expansive pieces of the practice as well as the elemental (or "fundamental") pieces."
To me, "element" suggests a homogeneous sample which may be physicaly divided (if you have enough), but cannot be broken down into different elements.
For instance, you could cut a (pure) gold coin in half, and then one of those pieces in half, etc, until you are down to one atom of gold.

"Broad, expansive elements" kinda clashes to me, though not really wrong.

Getting to your question about "piece" as a adjective, I don't have a problem with it.
A related adjective is "piecewise", often used in a mathematical context (eg "piecewise continuous"), but it doesn't quite fit here.

Jack Gavin

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I am using piece in a sentence as an adjective; is this permissable? "To understand the substance of Foreign ... practice as well as the piece elements." I am using it to mean, "the elements that make up Foreign Policy".[/nq]
The sentence as it stands makes no sense: "it is necessary to recognize the ... elements ... as well as the elements." Do you mean that "understanding foreign policy requires attention to practice as well as ideology," or "understanding foreign policy requires attention to the overall scheme as well as to the details," or something else.
I personally feel that the sense of the sentence is backwards. It is woefully easy for people to be trapped by what we in political science call "Grand Theory." Understanding foreign policy in terms of Grand Theory is useless unless one has a clear grasp of the details.

Martin Ambuhl

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Hi, I am using piece in a sentence as an ... it to mean, "the elements that make up Foreign Policy".[/nq]
[nq:1]The sentence as it stands makes no sense: "it is necessary to recognize the ... elements ... as well as ... Theory." Understanding foreign policy in terms of Grand Theory is useless unless one has a clear grasp of the details.[/nq]
I mean the latter, that it is important to understand the 'Grand Theory' of political science as well as the details.
Thank you for your correction.

Keith Little
E-mail munged.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I am using piece in a sentence as an adjective; is this permissable? "To understand the substance of Foreign Policy it is necessary to recognize the broad, expansive elements of the practice as well as the piece elements."[/nq]
This sentence seems unwise.
(1) Two types of elements are described:
broad/expansive elements and piece elements.
Uniformity suggests it would be prefereable to
distinguish each from the other by either adjectives or nouns but not both. Universalism would expect that these two types of element make up the
whole class of elements relevant to Foreign Policy. Even if we allow for metaphors, we have no
reason to suppose all the possible elements
are either broad/expansive elements or piece elements.

(2) The former suggests that "elements" is not the clearest word to use in this sentence. If the writer means components he should say so.
(3) The sentence associates Foreign Policy with
"the practice:" this raises the question (not answered in this sentence) whether theoretical aspects of For. Pol. are deliberately excluded from this particular essay. "Substance" does not clarify it. What is the word doing anyway: i.e. what is "the substance of
For. Pol." as distinct from just "For. Pol."?
The Strunk/White rule that remedies this sentence
fastest is "omit needless words." Too many words
in the sentence are needless: and their removal
exposes the scantiness of the thought.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I personally feel that the sense of the sentence is backwards. It is woefully easy for people to be trapped ... Theory." Understanding foreign policy in terms of Grand Theory is useless unless one has a clear grasp of the details.[/nq]
The details of foreign policy or of Grand Theory?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I am using piece in a sentence as an adjective; is this permissable? "To understand the substance of Foreign Policy it is necessary to recognize the broad, expansive elements of the practice as well as the piece elements."[/nq]
No, I don't believe "piece" can be used in that way.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

'Piece' as Adjective.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions