Sentence structure

Question

This is part of what a CNN reporter said of a recent terror attack in Paris:

It was a philosophy of freedom that the weekly took full advantage of with scathing cartoons and headlines mocking politics and religion, and the freedom it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for today.

Two questions.
(1) Is the first part before comma an it-cleft construction?

(2) In the second part after comma, is 'the freedom' being modified by what follows or is it simply put first for emphasis?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

JungKim1) Is the first part before comma an it-cleft construction?

Yes. The weekly took full advantage of [a philosophy of freedom] with scathing cartoons ...

JungKim(2) In the second part after comma, is 'the freedom' being modified by what follows or is it simply put first for emphasis?

It's clumsy, but it appears to be a case of modification. the freedom that it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for [the freedom] today.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

I think that you changed your mind regarding (2), right?

If it's a case of modification, then how would you connect "the freedom (that)..." with the first part?

And what makes you think that the second part cannot be an independent clause meaning "it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for the freedom today."?

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimI think that you changed your mind regarding (2), right?

Yes. At first it seemed like emphasis of "the freedom", but after considering it further, I changed my mind.

JungKimIf it's a case of modification, then how would you connect "the freedom (that)..." with the first part?

It occurs in the phrase "philosophy of freedom", so the speaker has repeated "the freedom" as a reference back to that phrase as a kind of appositive.

JungKimwhat makes you think that the second part cannot be an independent clause meaning "it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for the freedom today."?

"the freedom" doesn't occur there in the sentence, as you know. I put it there for the purpose of illustrating where it fits grammatically in the relative clause. If it were really there as part of an independent clause it would not have the article "the". An independent sentence would have this:

It seems (that) at least ten of its staff may have died for freedom today.
____________

The sentence is an off-the-cuff remark which was not planned out as is possible to do when writing. As such it cannot be expected to be perfectly grammatical. Therefore, it does not merit further analysis.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJimThe sentence is an off-the-cuff remark which was not planned out as is possible to do when writing. As such it cannot be expected to be perfectly grammatical. Therefore, it does not merit further analysis.

Thanks for the detailed analysis. I appreciate it. Analysis itself aside, however, I beg to differ on this. When the reporter prepared his article, do you really think that he didn't plan out the wording in advance? The "remark" may well have been based on a well-prepared, even proofread script. At least that's what I normally would expect a news report to be. (We're not talking about an interview of sorts in a news report, which might be an "off-the-cuff remark".)

CalifJimJungKim: If it's a case of modification, then how would you connect "the freedom (that)..." with the first part? It occurs in the phrase "philosophy of freedom", so the speaker has repeated "the freedom" as a reference back to that phrase as a kind of appositive.

Were "the freedom" in an appositive construction with "(a philosophy of) freedom", why would you need "and" before "the freedom"?

CalifJimJungKim: what makes you think that the second part cannot be an independent clause meaning "it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for the freedom today."? "the freedom" doesn't occur there in the sentence, as you know. I put it there for the purpose of illustrating where it fits grammatically in the relative clause. If it were really there as part of an independent clause it would not have the article "the". An independent sentence would have this:It seems (that) at least ten of its staff may have died for freedom today.

Why is it not possible to have "the" in front of "freedom" in an independent clause when it is referring back to the specific freedom mentioned before in the phrase "a philosophy of freedom"?

---
I've located the news clip. The quote begins at about 20 seconds.

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimThe "remark" may well have been based on a well-prepared, even proofread script. At least that's what I normally would expect a news report to be.

I would be surprised if there was much time for proofreading in such a "fast-breaking news" event. In any case, your original description of the situation made me think it was a reporter extemporizing rather than reading.

JungKimWere "the freedom" in an appositive construction with "(a philosophy of) freedom", why would you need "and" before "the freedom"?

I heard "a freedom", not "the freedom", but in any case "and" would not occur in a true appositive. You can think of the "and" as "and it was" if you want to make a little more sense of it. There is a noise on the video at that point, by the way, which may indicate editing, so I don't think we can even be absolutely sure that all of this was actually one continuous sequence of speech in the original version before editing.

JungKimWhy is it not possible to have "the" in front of "freedom" in an independent clause when it is referring back to the specific freedom mentioned before in the phrase "a philosophy of freedom"?

'freedom' is an abstract noun. It would not have an article unless it were modified by something — in this case the relative clause. "a freedom (that) ... [they] died for ..."

CJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJim'freedom' is an abstract noun. It would not have an article unless it were modified by something — in this case the relative clause. "a freedom (that) ... [they] died for ..."

Let me rephrase my question in an effort to address this issue without going into further generalization about grammar.

Let's just forget about this specific news report, and just think of this as a writing exercise. Say, I'm preparing a written script for a reporter as his assistant and I have:
(1) It was a philosophy of freedom that the weekly took full advantage of with scathing cartoons and headlines mocking politics and religion, and it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for freedom today.
(2) It was a philosophy of freedom that the weekly took full advantage of with scathing cartoons and headlines mocking politics and religion, and it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for the freedom today.
(3) It was a philosophy of freedom that the weekly took full advantage of with scathing cartoons and headlines mocking politics and religion, and it seems at least ten of its staff may have died for a freedom today.

Now, which is the best script and which is ungrammatical?

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimNow, which is the best script and which is ungrammatical?

(1) has to be selected as the best because both (2) and (3) are ungrammatical.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

So even if I'd like to specifically single out the specific type of freedom that has been mentioned in the first part, I may not say 'the freedom' as in (2), right?

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimSo even if I'd like to specifically single out the specific type of freedom that has been mentioned in the first part, I may not say 'the freedom' as in (2), right?

Yes, that is correct.

CJ

Sentence structure

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions