 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009rely on institutions to protect their rights
Hello! Would you please help me understand the following passage? I cannot figure out the structure of the expression ***rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights to do so*** The US offers the people various opportunities and institutions. They have ample opportunities to prosper and can ***rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights to do so***. First, I would like to know the usage of the infinitive "to protect". I wonder which of the two interpretations is correct. a) This an example of the following usage of the verb rely; rely on something/someone to do something. or b) "to protect" just modifies the noun "institutions", as follows "institutions that protect their civil and economic rights" Second, does the infinitive "to do so" modify the noun "rights", or is it an adverbial phrase that expresses a purpose, like " in order to do so"? Thank you in advance. LP > a) This an example of the following usage of the verb rely; rely on > something/someone to do something. Yes. Structurally, "institutions" is the subject of "to protect." > Second, does the infinitive "to do so" modify the noun "rights", Yes. Overall, it's saying that the right to prosper is protected by institutions, and people can rely on that protection. ¬R >> The US offers the people various opportunities and institutions. They >> have ample opportunities to prosper and can ***rely on institutions to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes. Overall, it's saying that the right to prosper is protected by > institutions, and people can rely on that protection. I don't agree with this interpretation. People don't have "rights to prosper", which follows from your reading. Rather, "to do so" refers to "to prosper" and means "in order to". The whole sentence can be paraphrased: "The people have opportunities to prosper and can rely on institutions to protect their (civil/economic) rights so they (the people) can prosper.  SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. > I don't agree with this interpretation. On further rereading, neither do I. I think you're right that it was intended as: >an adverbial phrase that expresses a purpose, like " in order to do >so" Institutions protect people's civil and economic rights, and people can prosper because they can trust this protection. The sentence is problematic because the two different uses of infinitives with the same main verb don't mix, and that's why mm and I couldn't parse it any better than you. You can rely on someone to do something for you, or you can rely on your tools to get it done yourself, but it's just asking too much of one little word to rely on someone to do one thing to get something else done yourself. WHOOPS! GUESS SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO CLEAN THAT UP! MAYBE NEXT TIME ¬R >--> THE GUY SHOULD TRY A LITTLE HARDER NOT TO HIT PEOPLE WITH http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/davidcar.html >--> HIS CAR! --Jake >Hello! Would you please help me understand the following passage? I >cannot figure out the structure of the expression ***rely on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a) This an example of the following usage of the verb rely; rely on >something/someone to do something. This is correct. > or >b) "to protect" just modifies the noun "institutions", as follows >"institutions that protect their civil and economic rights" It doesn't mean that. Further, I have never heard of infinitives modifying nouns. >Second, does the infinitive "to do so" modify the noun "rights", or is As I said, infinitives dcon't modiify noune afaik, but it is connected to the noun. >it an adverbial phrase that expresses a purpose, like " in order to do >so"? "in order to do so" doesn't fit there. Whether Patok thinks it's accurate or not, it's talking about the civil and economic right to prosper. I don't think the author really means rights to prosper. He means the right to conduct business or work reasonably freely, subject only to reasonable laws and regulations, equitably applied. Experience has shown literally millions of cases of people who do this, even without the equity, who prosper. There are also some people who do this who don't prosper. We shouldn't let them starve, for example. >Thank you in advance. > >LP SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years In article <b3ee68e4-15ef-4585-b6d1-82fe841b69ec@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > Hello! Would you please help me understand the following passage? I > cannot figure out the structure of the expression ***rely on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > b) "to protect" just modifies the noun "institutions", as follows > "institutions that protect their civil and economic rights" As others have said, the former; the inclusion of a relative pronoun (your "that") in the latter version is necessary to convey that meaning. > Second, does the infinitive "to do so" modify the noun "rights", or is > it an adverbial phrase that expresses a purpose, like " in order to do > so"? Writing "to do so" merely avoids the repetition of "to prosper". I'm not sure exactly how to describe its relation to "rights", but it's more or less adjectival. We could cop out and call it an idiom ... but the same pattern occurs elsewhere: "the will to live", "a duty to serve", "money to burn", &c. SignatureOdysseus Thanks a lot for your each comments. I wonder if I can paraphrase the second sentence as follows. = They have ample opportunities to prosper, and in order to take advantage of the opportunities, they can rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights. This interpretation presupposes that, unless their civil and economic rights are protected, they cannot take advantage of the ample opportunities to prosper. I am looking forward to your comments. LP >This interpretation presupposes that, unless their civil and economic >rights are protected, they cannot take advantage of the ample >opportunities to prosper. This meaning was probably not intended, and it's created by your addition of "in order." You could rephrase the sentence more simply by just moving "to do so" before the newly formed clause: They have ample opportunities to prosper, and to do so they can rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights. I suppose you could leave out the added "they," but then the modifier really needs to be set off to be intelligible: They have ample opportunities to prosper and, to do so, can rely on institutions to protect their civil and economic rights. Either way, it's still awkward. ¬R Plus meditandum, minus misculandum. (Marty Shapiro, deftly translated by Sean Fitzpatrick) I really appreciate your kind comment and advice, although, being non native, I am not quite sure what makes it awkward. LP >I am not quite sure what makes it awkward. I wasn't, either, or I would have said more specifically. It might not even be so much a matter of syntax as of the logic of the statement. I don't get something done by relying on someone to do something else. ¬R "Carl Sagan is more educational than J.R.R. Tolkien even though they were both total stoners." K. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cosmic.html >I really appreciate your kind comment and advice, although, being non > native, I am not quite sure what makes it awkward. I agree with Glenn's analysis and with his advice to move "to do so". It's awkward as it stands because one's first assumption is that "to do so" applies to its neighbour "rights". But a moment's thought ("But no one has a right to prosper!") shows this interpretation to be nonsensical, and then the reader sees that "to do so" must apply to "can rely". Placing this kind of adverbial expression at the beginning of its clause often avoids such momentary confusion. The later it comes, the more likely that it will be mistakenly applied to some adjacent element in the sentence. In your sentence there's no harm done, because one is forced to look for another interpretation, but sometimes the misplaced adverbial will make a sort of sense, though unfortunately not what the author intended. Alan Jones |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.