Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

I woiuldn't tend to use "elements" that way.

How about...

"...recognize the broad expansive pieces of the practice as well as the
elemental [or "fundamental"] pieces."

To me, "element" suggests a homogeneous sample which may be physicaly
divided (if you have enough), but cannot be broken down into *different*
elements.

For instance, you could cut a (pure) gold coin in half, and then one of
those pieces in half, etc, until you are down to one atom of gold.

"Broad, expansive elements" kinda clashes to me, though not really wrong.

Getting to your question about "piece" as a adjective, I don't have a
problem with it.

A related adjective is "piecewise", often used in a mathematical context
(eg "piecewise continuous"), but it doesn't quite fit here.

The sentence as it stands makes no sense: "it is necessary to recognize the
... elements ... as well as the elements."  Do you mean that "understanding
foreign policy requires attention to practice as well as ideology," or
"understanding foreign policy requires attention to the overall scheme as
well as to the details," or something else.

I personally feel that the sense of the sentence is backwards.  It is
woefully easy for people to be trapped by what we in political science call
"Grand Theory."  Understanding foreign policy in terms of Grand Theory is
useless unless one has a clear grasp of the details.

This sentence seems unwise.
(1)  Two types of elements are described:
broad/expansive elements and piece elements.
Uniformity suggests it would be prefereable to
distinguish each from the other by either adjectives
or nouns but not both.   Universalism would expect
that these two types of element make up the
whole class of elements relevant to Foreign Policy.
Even if we allow for metaphors, we have no
reason to suppose all the possible elements
are either broad/expansive elements or piece elements.

(2)  The former suggests that "elements" is not the
clearest word to use in this sentence.  If the writer
means components he should say so.

(3)  The sentence associates Foreign Policy with
"the practice:"   this raises the question (not answered
in this sentence) whether theoretical aspects of For. Pol.
are deliberately excluded from this particular essay.
"Substance" does not clarify it.  What is the word
doing anyway:  i.e. what is "the substance of
For. Pol." as distinct from just "For. Pol."?

The Strunk/White rule that remedies this sentence
fastest is "omit needless words."  Too many words
in the sentence are needless:  and their removal
exposes the scantiness of the thought.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)

No, I don't believe "piece" can be used in that way.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom