range from small tables … to actually having desks

[Yurui Liu]

I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.

Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
set up outside.

[Mark Brader]

Yurui Liu:

Strictly speaking it's not correct because, as you say, the structures
aren't parallel; but it's natural in the sense that someone might
actually say it.

The comma should be deleted.
--
Mark Brader | "Opening a monitor case is not for the inexperienced
Toronto | or the faint of heart, unless you need
m...@vex.net | defibrillation." -- Kevin D. Swan

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:17:12 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Yurui Liu:
>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
>>
>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
>> set up outside.
>
>Strictly speaking it's not correct because, as you say, the structures
>aren't parallel; but it's natural in the sense that someone might
>actually say it.
>
>The comma should be deleted.

It would be good if Yurui Lie would provide a definition of what he
considers "natural". It seems to me that "natural" is simply what can
ordinarily be said by someone who hasn't given a great deal of care or
thought to what is being said. A sentence that is awkward, that
contains non-parallel prepositions, that is verbose, or that is in any
one of several ways not the best possible structure can be "natural".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Tak To]

On 7/19/2019 11:17 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Yurui Liu:
>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
>>
>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
>> set up outside.
>
> Strictly speaking it's not correct because, as you say, the structures
> aren't parallel; but it's natural in the sense that someone might
> actually say it.
>
> The comma should be deleted.

My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".

Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).
OTOH, the *arrangement* of tables can constitute or
characterize a space. Thus, "spaces range from tables ..."
is simply wrong. One has to say something like "spaces range
from *having* tables ...". Replacing "spaces" with
"arrangements" would be a further improvement.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 4:13:06 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 7/19/2019 11:17 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Yurui Liu:
> >> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
> >> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
> >>
> >> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
> >> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
> >> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
> >> set up outside.
> >
> > Strictly speaking it's not correct because, as you say, the structures
> > aren't parallel; but it's natural in the sense that someone might
> > actually say it.
> >
> > The comma should be deleted.
>
> My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
> with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".
>
> Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
> of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
> spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).
> OTOH, the *arrangement* of tables can constitute or
> characterize a space. Thus, "spaces range from tables ..."
> is simply wrong. One has to say something like "spaces range
> from *having* tables ...". Replacing "spaces" with
> "arrangements" would be a further improvement.

That won't do. If, say, four Teaching Assistants have to share one office,
and it has, say, one big library table with demarcations into four quarters,
or four carrels, the Administrator who shows a new recruit to their working
area -- their "workplace" -- they can say "And this is your space."

[Tak To]

The context was about "office space", which I took as the
collective environment, not the "work spaces" for the
individuals.

In any case, it was a bit unclear how a set of tables defines
an office space -- even though I have stipulated that for the
sake of explaining my point.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 04:13:01 -0400, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:

>On 7/19/2019 11:17 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Yurui Liu:
>>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
>>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
>>>
>>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
>>> set up outside.
>>
>> Strictly speaking it's not correct because, as you say, the structures
>> aren't parallel; but it's natural in the sense that someone might
>> actually say it.
>>
>> The comma should be deleted.
>
>My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
>with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".
>
>Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
>of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
>spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).
>OTOH, the *arrangement* of tables can constitute or
>characterize a space. Thus, "spaces range from tables ..."
>is simply wrong. One has to say something like "spaces range
>from *having* tables ...". Replacing "spaces" with
>"arrangements" would be a further improvement.

A "space" in this context is what in everyday English is a "room" or
some equivalent area outdoors.

I'd minimally reword the quotation, with my insertion marked '..', as:

"Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from

'those with' small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks

and computers set up outside."

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

If you want to confine the matter solely to the initial quote, what is
an "outdoors" office space with "all the necessities"?

[Mark Brader]

Yurui Liu:
>>>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
>>>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
>>>>
>>>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>>>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>>>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
>>>> set up outside.

Tak To:

>> My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
>> with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".
>>
>> Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
>> of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
>> spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).

"Unless!" So you do understand it.

Peter Duncanson:

> I'd minimally reword the quotation, with my insertion marked '..', as:
>
> "Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
> 'those with' small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks
> and computers set up outside."

You've made the same mistake as Tak. Each table is an office space.
--
Mark Brader | ...roll the imaginary 60-meter sphere across the landscape
Toronto | (for safety reasons, do not use a real sphere).
m...@vex.net | --Randall Munroe

[Yurui Liu]

Mark Brader於 2019年7月21日星期日 UTC+8上午5時24分53秒寫道：

> Yurui Liu:
> >>>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
> >>>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
> >>>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
> >>>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
> >>>> set up outside.
>
> Tak To:
> >> My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
> >> with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".
> >>
> >> Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
> >> of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
> >> spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).
>
> "Unless!" So you do understand it.
>
> Peter Duncanson:
> > I'd minimally reword the quotation, with my insertion marked '..', as:
> >
> > "Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
> > office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
> > 'those with' small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks
> > and computers set up outside."
>
> You've made the same mistake as Tak. Each table is an office space.

So an "office space" is a space for an individual worker, not an area
that can accommodate many people at the same time?

[Tak To]

On 7/20/2019 5:24 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Yurui Liu:
>>>>> I'm wondering if the structures following the prepositions "from" and "to"
>>>>> are natural and correct. They do not seem parallel to each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>>>>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>>>>> small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks and computers
>>>>> set up outside.
>
> Tak To:
>>> My objection is less with the non-parallel construction than
>>> with the improper semantics link between "tables" and "space".
>>>
>>> Note that "tables" and "space" are at two different levels
>>> of abstraction. Tables by themselves are not examples of
>>> spaces (unless one means the space comprising the table tops).
>
> "Unless!" So you do understand it.
>
> Peter Duncanson:
>> I'd minimally reword the quotation, with my insertion marked '..', as:
>>
>> "Office spaces that are outdoors have all the necessities of a modern
>> office ... but they are built closer to nature. The spaces range from
>> 'those with' small tables outdoors in a park, to actually having desks
>> and computers set up outside."
>
> You've made the same mistake as Tak. Each table is an office space.

People put chairs on the table? Sitting on the table?

[Mark Brader]

Yurui Liu:

> So an "office space" is a space for an individual worker, not an area
> that can accommodate many people at the same time?

More likely the other, but it could be either way.
--
Mark Brader | "The speed of sound is considerably less than the
Toronto | speed of light -- that is why some people appear bright
m...@vex.net | until you hear them talk."