0
AlexandreAnother Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Problem with semantics
I have been told that this sentence is grammatically correct, but I want to know if it is semantically.
We shall now describe the process whereby the plan of the process is effective
I know the sentence is extremely vague, therefore I chose to make the meaning clearer using a similar sentence:
Let's talk about my enemy's punches through which his intent to hurt me has an effect on me.
Now, both sentences must be both wrong or correct semantically.
The only thing I think we can object to these two sentences is the fact that neither a plan or an intent can have an effect directly.
However, we often say "a plan has an effect" like in this example:
The plan will have the effect of centralizing reserves and making them available.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A0DE7D8113EE233A2575BC1A9679C946096D6CF
I want to know if it is correct or not and why. Is it for the reason I mentioned? I would also like to know why the third sentence is correct if the two earlier sentences are semantically incorrect for the reason I mentioned.
We shall now describe the process whereby the plan of the process is effective
I know the sentence is extremely vague, therefore I chose to make the meaning clearer using a similar sentence:
Let's talk about my enemy's punches through which his intent to hurt me has an effect on me.
Now, both sentences must be both wrong or correct semantically.
The only thing I think we can object to these two sentences is the fact that neither a plan or an intent can have an effect directly.
However, we often say "a plan has an effect" like in this example:
The plan will have the effect of centralizing reserves and making them available.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A0DE7D8113EE233A2575BC1A9679C946096D6CF
I want to know if it is correct or not and why. Is it for the reason I mentioned? I would also like to know why the third sentence is correct if the two earlier sentences are semantically incorrect for the reason I mentioned.
Top answer
Two and three are fine. The plan is not of the process; the process is of the plan. Your categories are screwed up.
- Two and three are fine.
- The plan is not of the process; the process is of the plan.
- Your categories are screwed up.
- " The dog is chasing its tail.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
Two and three are fine.
The plan is not of the process; the process is of the plan. Your categories are screwed up.
It sounds as if you're talking about two distinct and different "processes." The dog is chasing its tail.
The plan is not of the process; the process is of the plan. Your categories are screwed up.
It sounds as if you're talking about two distinct and different "processes." The dog is chasing its tail.
00
Thank for your prompt response.
I fear I didn't understand what you meant. I don't understand why we can't say "plan of the process" would it be better if I say "plan for the process"?
I fear I didn't understand what you meant. I don't understand why we can't say "plan of the process" would it be better if I say "plan for the process"?
00
I've been trying to find a way to get a handle on this issue, but I don't have it yet. Don't give up.
It seems like you define the process in terms of the plan, and the plan in terms of the process, and when you put them together they seem to clash.
I had thought about suggesting "plan for the process," but I ne
It seems like you define the process in terms of the plan, and the plan in terms of the process, and when you put them together they seem to clash.
I had thought about suggesting "plan for the process," but I ne
00
I wanted to say that the plan is intimately associated with the process, the process is actually the execution of the plan. How should I say what I want to say without giving up the clause "whereby the process.."?
00
AlexandreAnother I wanted to say that the plan is intimately associated with the process, the process is actually the execution of the plan. How should I say what I want to say without giving up the clause "whereby the process.."?Did you mean " . . . whereby the plan of the process . . . " ??
I suspect that to say "the process is actually the exec
00
0
Did you notice that you switched from "whereby the plan" to "Whereby the process"? Was it intentional? You didn't answer my question about it.
You may have noticed that I posted to your earlier thread by mistake.
Generally speaking, without some tough qualifications, we'd take the process to be a part of the plan. We would not take the plan to be a part of the process. You s
You may have noticed that I posted to your earlier thread by mistake.
Generally speaking, without some tough qualifications, we'd take the process to be a part of the plan. We would not take the plan to be a part of the process. You s
00
Alright, now I get you. When I say the plan of the process, I do not think the process or the plan to be subordinated to another. I thought it was unidiomatic too, but not for that reason. I say this because "of" can indicate association. At least that is what I found out when I looked up in the dictionary at this address www.dictionary.com .
0
Related Questions