Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

participle

2 views
Skip to first unread message

navi

unread,
Nov 16, 2010, 11:47:21 PM11/16/10
to
Is this sentence correct:
1-They were to advance the party's agenda, including the publication
of a newspaper.

(They were to advance the party's agenda, which included the
publication of a newspaper.)

John Lawler

unread,
Nov 17, 2010, 12:24:00 AM11/17/10
to

Yes. Mostly.
Though that's not *quite* what it means.
A non-restrictive relative like "which
included" indicates that the publication
was part of the agenda.

But what (1) *really* says is that the publication
was part of the *advancement of the agenda*,
i.e, it was to be part of how the agenda came
to pass. If the agenda was political, the newpaper
could contribute to achieving it, but wouldn't
be part of the agenda itself.

Like many of these constructions, the possible
meanings are very very similar, and it may
not make a difference which one is apprehended.

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
"'Meaning' is one of the words of which one may
say that they have odd jobs in our language...
What causes most trouble in philosophy is that
we are tempted to describe the use of important
'odd-job' words as though they were words with
regular functions." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

navi

unread,
Nov 17, 2010, 1:36:49 AM11/17/10
to
On Nov 16, 9:24 pm, John Lawler <johnmlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:47 pm, navi <lorca1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this sentence correct:
> > 1-They were to advance the party's agenda, including the publication
> > of a newspaper.
>
> > (They were to advance the party's agenda, which included the
> > publication of a newspaper.)
>
> Yes. Mostly.
> Though that's not *quite* what it means.
> A non-restrictive relative like "which
> included" indicates that the publication
> was part of the agenda.
>
> But what (1) *really* says is that the publication
> was part of the *advancement of the agenda*,
> i.e, it was to be part of how the agenda came
> to pass. If the agenda was political, the newpaper
> could contribute to achieving it, but wouldn't
> be part of the agenda itself.
>
> Like many of these constructions, the possible
> meanings are very very similar, and it may
> not make a difference which one is apprehended.
>
> -John Lawlerhttp://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue

> "'Meaning' is one of the words of which one may
>   say that they have odd jobs in our language...
>   What causes most trouble in philosophy is that
>   we are tempted to describe the use of important
>   'odd-job' words as though they were words with
>   regular functions."   -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Thanks a lot John.

Does 'including' have a subject in this sentence? Is its subject
'they'? They were to include?
Or maybe 'including' doesn't have a real subject at all. I took the
subject to be 'the party's agenda', but maybe 'including...' modifies
the whole sentence in a way?

Marius Hancu

unread,
Nov 17, 2010, 5:12:19 AM11/17/10
to

1 is correct, however IMO the meaning is not exactly what you have in
parentheses, but what Professor Lawler mentioned.

One of the reasons, IMO, is that a possible paraphrase might be:

1a. Their task was the advancing/advancement of the party's agenda,


including the publication of a newspaper.

where "including" refers to "advancing of the party's agenda." As in
many of such ing-form/ing-participle-based non-restrictive clauses,
the "ing-form" radiates to a large part of the main sentence. How
large? IMO is as large as the logic bears:-)

Now while this is the prevalent meaning, many might want to refer
"including" exactly to the "advancing" or to the "agenda," and that
can be done:

1b. Their task was the advancing/advancement of the party's agenda,
that/an advancement including the publication of a newspaper.

1c. Their task was the advancing of the party's agenda, that/an agenda


including the publication of a newspaper.

For 1b and 1c, the subject for "including" is, IMO, "that/an
advancement," respectively "that/an agenda."

Rewriting 1 as:

1d- To advance the party's agenda, an advancement which included the
publication of a newspaper, was their task.

shows that the subject of "including" in 1 is most probably "to
advance the party's agenda."

I'm saying "most probably," because in 1 "including" is verbal, but
very weakly. See:

1e- They were to advance the party's agenda, also/and/likewise the
publication of a newspaper.

BTW, I am aware that " also/and/likewise" shows "beside-ness"and not
"inclusion." Perhaps someone has better suggestions:-)

Marius Hancu

navi

unread,
Nov 17, 2010, 5:22:39 PM11/17/10
to
Thank you Marius.

I think you have re-written the sentence and analyzed your re-writes,
but the grammar in my sentence is not the same as the grammar in your
sentences. Your analysis is good when it comes to your sentences, but
as you yourself mentioned, it doesn't necessarily apply to mine. I
think we better leave this to Professor Lawler or to other native
speakers.

Cheers.

0 new messages