either one or the other
chance
How would you have read the following three sentences if asked to?
1.--Their business misfortune had reduced the family to a state of total despair,
and Gregor's only concern at that time had been to arrange things
so that they could all forget about it as quickly as possible.
2.--One day, in order to spare her even this sight, he spent four hours
carrying the bedsheet over to the couch on his back and arranged it
so that he was completely covered and his sister would not be able
to see him even if she bent down. -- Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
translated by David Wyllie.
3.--They arranged the seating so, that all had a clear view of the stage. <formal>
--A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Randolf Quirk et al.
I believe that there would be no problem, concerning #1, #2 sentences.
However, coming to # 3 sentence, I believe that you will wonder
if such a sentence would have been acceptable. If acceptable,
it would give a rise to a great confusion stemming from the question
when is it that #1, #2 sentences are used and when is it
that #3 sentence should be used. Who in the world can decide
'that when'? I believe no one can overcome this dilemma, ever.
Furthermore, the book characterizes #3 sentence by tagging it
as <formal>.
If it is so, are #1, #2 sentences and their likes all informal?
What in the world do you think has led to this nonsense of #3?
Your kindest comments, please.
TIA
Chance
MC
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
Are you sure there is a comma after "so" in #3?
If so, it does affect the flow of the sentence.
If you remove it, or it was never there in the first place, I don't
agree that #3 is nonsense. And even with the comma I wouldn't call it
nonsense, just badly punctuated.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
chance
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message news:i8a092$bg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Excuse me for posting an OT post. Why I post OT posts like this one
is that I'd like to borrow bountiful linguistic talents stored in this place.
MC
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>
> Excuse me for posting an OT post. Why I post OT posts like this one
> is that I'd like to borrow bountiful linguistic talents stored in this place.
It's not off topic in alt.usage.english.
chance
"MC" <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote
>> Excuse me for posting an OT post. Why I post OT posts like this one
>> is that I'd like to borrow bountiful linguistic talents stored in this place.
>
> It's not off topic in alt.usage.english.
Pat Durkin
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:i8a092$bg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
I think we have had a shot at #3 before...maybe 3 years ago?
While at first glance it appears mal-punctuated, a careful reading
brings about a new meaning.
The seating was arranged "(just) so", "(in order, with the result, to
provide ) that..."
(Of course, the simple conjunction "and", replacing "that" is good,
but changes the nature from the sense of purpose or design.)
I want to say that the feeling is subjunctive, and then to correct the
part after the comma to read, "that all _might have_ a clear view".
However, since it is an accomplished fact, the nearest excuse I have
for subjunctive/imperative mood is a very weak wish or request, and
then again...it is a fact stated in the past tense and therefore
declarative (but my doubts remain unallayed).
There is that feeling of being betrayed by the tense of the verb in
the dependent clause.
"The chief ordered them to stop, that they all had lunch." Is it
possibly because I use AmE that the subjunctive insists that "they all
have (might have) lunch"