 |
 | 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 2010Elementary question regarding "much more than..." and "is more of..."
Hi all, I know this sounds stupid, but I just caught someone (in a non-English bulletin board) arguing that the following two sentences mean more or less the same thing: "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." (quote from Carl Sagan) "Science is more of a body of knowledge than all else." (a "paraphrase" by the poster) I called BS and said that they in fact mean almost the exact opposite. And then he insults me, saying he verified it with a native speaker with PhD. (Well, to be fair, I also insulted him...) So.... what do you guys think? * Also, I think the "of" in the second sentence should really be "about", but I'm less certain about that. (After all I'm not a native speaker.) Am I correct? Thanks, - Yongjik Kim >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >So.... what do you guys think? I think the second statement is the opposite of the first sentence. It seems someone is disagreeing with Sagan rather than paraphrasing him. >* Also, I think the "of" in the second sentence should really be >"about", but I'm less certain about that. (After all I'm not a native >speaker.) Am I correct? I'd stick with "of". "Of" is used to say that science is a body of knowledge. "About" would be used to say that science pertains to a body of knowledge. "Of" can be dropped from the sentence and it still says the same thing. Probably better.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So.... what do you guys think? Assuming that his "of" is wrong (see below), you're right, and he's wrong. Sagan's quote says that science is less a body of knowledge than it is a way of thinking, so it can't be more a body of knowledge than it is anything else. > * Also, I think the "of" in the second sentence should really be > "about", but I'm less certain about that. (After all I'm not a native > speaker.) Am I correct? No. The preposition should simply not be there if the intention is to parallel the quote. The sentences say what science *is*. With "of" it says that science is a bigger body of knowledge than everything else put together. With "about" it would be something like that science is more concerned with a (particular) body of knowledge than anything else is. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opposite. And then he insults me, saying he verified it with a native > speaker with PhD. (Well, to be fair, I also insulted him...) He rewrote the sentence to make it say the opposite of what Sagan said. His Ph.D. friend may have been (a) drunk, (b), not paying attention, or (c) non-existent. > So.... what do you guys think? > > * Also, I think the "of" in the second sentence should really be > "about", but I'm less certain about that. (After all I'm not a > native speaker.) Am I correct? Why bother unnecessarily changing a preposition in a sentence that you think is fundamentally wrong? SignatureJames >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > His Ph.D. friend may have been (a) drunk, (b), not paying attention, or > (c) non-existent. I'd put my money on (c). Signatureathel >>> Hi all, >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'd put my money on (c). I'll offer (d) recipient of a "team degree" acquired without much investment of learning, earned by dint of personality (ingratiating or bullying; I've known both types). SignatureFrank ess > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So.... what do you guys think? Well, at least you were insulting and right! > * Also, I think the "of" in the second sentence should really be > "about", but I'm less certain about that. (After all I'm not a native > speaker.) Am I correct? No. I won't use the correct terminology here because I'm the non-erudite kind of native speaker but "body of x" is a familiar phrase in English. "Body of water", body of lies", "body of work" and "body of evidence" are other examples. "Body of knowledge" is instantly recognisable to me as being apt in the context. >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "body of evidence" are other examples. "Body of knowledge" is > instantly recognisable to me as being apt in the context. I'm sure the question concerned the first "of" in "Science is more of a body of knowledge", and whether that should be "Science is more about a body of knowledge". SignatureJames >>> Hi all, >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > a body of knowledge", and whether that should be "Science is more > about a body of knowledge". Oops, on my first careless reading I took that "second" as referring to the "of" and not the sentence. Thanks! (About isn't preferable to the first "of", either.) > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So.... what do you guys think? I think "than all else" in the second sentence is borderline nonsense. To the extent that it makes any sense, I agree with everyone else that the second sentence says the opposite of the first. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email |
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.