As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

datere - 30 May 2008 15:35 GMT

As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.

May I ask which one is better/more idomatic? Thank you!

Reply to this Message

Leslie Danks - 30 May 2008 16:02 GMT

> As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
> As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.
>
> May I ask which one is better/more idomatic? Thank you!

How about:

Written in haste, the book has many mistakes.

Signature

Les

Reply to this Message

Mark Brader - 31 May 2008 03:21 GMT

"Datere":

> > As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
> > As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.

Both are fine and the choice between them is a matter of style.

I prefer the first one, as it keeps the introductory subordinate clause
short. However, if there is a previous sentence with a word that might
be mistaken for the antecedent of "it", then the second one might help
avoid that.

Leslie Danks:

> Written in haste, the book has many mistakes.

That's grammatical, but it's not how people would normally say it.

Signature

Mark Brader "After many years of teaching, you get to learn
Toronto quite a lot about how to design a better idiot."
msb@vex.net --Peter Moylan

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Reply to this Message

Leslie Danks - 31 May 2008 09:23 GMT

[...]

> Leslie Danks:
>> Written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
>
> That's grammatical, but it's not how people would normally say it.

OK, but I can easily imagine it being _written_ -- in a book review, for
example.

Signature

Les

Reply to this Message

aspasia - 30 May 2008 16:10 GMT

>As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
>As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.
>
>May I ask which one is better/more idomatic? Thank you!

Depends on context. If the sentence just previous contained "book",
you could use the pronoun "it". Would be curious to see the context,
if you don't mind posting it.

Aspasia

Reply to this Message

datere - 30 May 2008 16:42 GMT

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT), datere
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Aspasia

Actually, I think the first sentence is wrong because I don't think
"it" can come before "the book", which "it" refers to. But I've asked
someone on the internet (not a native speaker), who said this is
"common". His reason is: "the book has many mistakes" is the main
clause, and "As it was written in haste" is an adverbial clause. "The
book" is better to be in the main clause, not the adverbial clause.
Thus in turns out to be "it" before "the book". But I'm doubtful of
his opinion, so I post the two serntences to let everyone see which
version is better. What do you think?

Reply to this Message

Don Phillipson - 30 May 2008 17:01 GMT

> > <ee123456...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> > >As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
> > >As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.
> >
> > >May I ask which one is better/more idomatic? Thank you!

> Actually, I think the first sentence is wrong because I don't think
> "it" can come before "the book", which "it" refers to.

No: this postulates a rule that does not exist. It might seem
logical that there be a rule that any pronoun be preceded by
specification of the noun or name to which it refers: but
English has no such rule (and thrived for 600 years without one.)

> But I've asked
> someone on the internet (not a native speaker), who said this is
> "common". His reason is: "the book has many mistakes" is the main
> clause, and "As it was written in haste" is an adverbial clause. "The
> book" is better to be in the main clause, not the adverbial clause.

No: grammar does not justify preferring one version over the
other (provided both are grammatically correct, as in this case.)

The critical difference here is that case 1 brings haste to the
reader's or listener's attention first, while case 2 brings the book to
his attention first. But the practical difference is very small. I
prefer case 1 but no rule of grammar or syntax requires this.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Reply to this Message

Alan Jones - 30 May 2008 17:14 GMT

>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT), datere
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> his opinion, so I post the two serntences to let everyone see which
> version is better. What do you think?

Both structures are common and acceptable, and the explanation you were
given by the non-native speaker is convincing. This forward placing of "it"
would perhaps be confusing and therefore better avoided if the adverbial
clause were much longer than in your example.

Alan Jones (native speaker of BrE)

Reply to this Message

John O'Flaherty - 30 May 2008 17:54 GMT

>As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.
>As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.
>
>May I ask which one is better/more idomatic? Thank you!

Both are perfectly fine. I'm sure of that as a native speaker. The
following is why I think they are both alright, but it's just surmise,
since I'm not a language professional:

Usually the referent of a pronoun appears first, as its name
(antecedent) suggests.

The second sentence is alright because the referent precedes the
pronoun as it usually would, and since it appears in a subordinate
clause, it's natural to look forward to complete the meaning.

In the first sentence,
"As it was written in haste, the book has many mistakes.",
introducing the pronoun before its referent doesn't impair
understanding because its appearance in the subordinate clause at the
beginning of the sentence makes the reader look forward. That works,
at least for a short sentence.

Something that doesn't work is
"It has many mistakes, as the book was written in haste."
because the "it" doesn't connect to "book". Introducing the pronoun
first in the main clause, when its intended antecedent follows in a
subordinate clause, makes the reader look back to before the beginning
of the sentence for its referent.

Signature

John

Reply to this Message

Garrett Wollman - 30 May 2008 20:44 GMT

>Both are perfectly fine. I'm sure of that as a native speaker. The
>following is why I think they are both alright, but it's just surmise,
>since I'm not a language professional:

The Language Loggers have written about this subject many times. A
Google search for "anaphora site:itre.cis.upenn.edu" (omitting the
quotation marks) will find many references.

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Reply to this Message

datere - 31 May 2008 00:24 GMT

Thanks! I benefited from your explanations a lot. Thank you!

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2008

As the book was written in haste, it has many mistakes.