Korean Job Discussion Forums

[tigershark]

Okay. My co-teacher is doing some sort of English class and she has a question about the grammatical make-up of the following sentence:

For this reason, history is said to be an excellent base on which to build a broader education and acquire an informed way of thinking about and looking at the world.


Anyways, she is confused mainly with the "on which to build" part of the sentence. Is it a relative noun clause? So anyways if anyone could break down this sentence grammatically with an explanation it would be much appreciated. I'm not proud of this but in all honesty grammar is not my strong point. I would even go so far as to say it's my weak point but I have been meaning to work on it.

First one to give the correct answer WINS!!!

READY GO!!!

[ThingsComeAround]

[Privateer]

It's a relative clause with a preposition. As I recall, that type of relative clause structure is the last that learners acquire. I don't really know how to explain it, but I can show it through examples.

Example 1 (simple relative clause with no preposition)

This is the shirt.
+
I wear the shirt.
=
This is the shirt (that/which) I wear.

Example 2 (simple relative clause with a preposition)

This is the ground.
+
I stand on the ground.
=
This is the ground (that/which) I stand on.
OR (more formally)
This is the ground on which I stand.

Note that a relative pronoun cannot be omitted and it must be 'which', not 'that' in the latter case. In everyday informal language the preposition goes to the back, but we also have a more formal mode in which it doesn't.

Your example is slightly more complex because you've got an infinitive phrase. If you change the verb 'stand' in my example to an infinitive, it looks like this:

Example 3 (simple relative clause with a preposition and an infinitive)

This is the ground.
+
To stand on the ground.
=
This is the ground on which to stand.

You can also say This is the ground to stand on but then there's no relative clause involved. Similarly, in your example you could change it to education to build on.

If your co-teacher still doesn't get it after seeing that, then I don't know how to help him/her!

[tigershark]

Privateer is the winner. Congrats.

I did not write the sentence. It's in her course book or something


On a side note. I'm interested in working on my grammar. Any suggestions as to where to begin or a site to go about this?

[moosehead]

[toph]

Well, privateer answered your first question.

But as for your grammar? Well you can just google your questions, which is the easiest/cheapest (e.g., free) way, as long as they're not super-specific. Like, are you're just looking for tenses/verb forms? Those can definitely be googled. Spelling? Google.

But if you really need help with grammar, sentence structure, s+v+o agreement...then I would recommend www.grammaradvisor.com

It's an English-grammar course that starts with morphemes, and ends with teaching grammar (the course is aimed at ESL teachers). Idk how much it costs, cause I got enrolled for free along with my TEFL course, but I can't imagine it being too much. Also, and this might be a catch (I'm not sure), there is a final exam at the end. This is only thing that will get graded, but you need to pass it with a 70% or better to pass. You get 3 tries though, and I passed on my first try. So it's not hard (there are 100 questions though -.-). And you get a certificate too~ So it pays off in the end, in my opinion

[toph]

@moosehead

I agree with point one.

But I don't agree with the rest: Broad can imply well-rounded. Well-rounded can imply broad. Broader is appropriate for the story.

As for your third point? Well, the story implies that WITHOUT history one lacks a broad education. With history you obtain it. Thus, they're comparing an education with and without historical knowledge.

#4: I think it can be said that you "acquire an informed way of thinking," just as much as it can be said that you "acquire knowledge." For example, both "an informed way of thinking" and "knowledge" are abstract nouns, and both are associated with thought. But you seem to think that the verb "acquire," which means to come to have as a new trait (Merriam Webster), can only be used for knowledge. So, according to you, you cannot come to have an informed way of thinking? I'm pretty sure you can. Otherwise...well, many people would have an UNINFORMED way of thinking. Also, an informed way of thinking completely makes sense for the story. An informed way of thinking, in my opinion, can be considered the opposite of ignorance. Therefore, because they talk about a knowledge in history leading to a broader education, the person doesn't want to be ignorant.

#5: Actually, I agree with you here.

[moosehead]

Toph -

I'm not saying one can't acquire an "informed way of thinking" just that it's the best structure to use such a phrase; the word "knowledge" encompasses the same meaning and then some - that's all.

the same goes for "uninformed way of thinking" that would be - ignorance.

often times when we write drafts, we will use phrases that come to mind as to what we want to say. that's all fine and well but then the process of editing is to find those phrases and substitute words that define them, thereby making a better sentence.

[moosehead]

as for broader - it's a comparative (superlative) and you've offered nothing to compare it to tho I suppose one could assume w/o history - perhaps.

as for broad education - perhaps it's redundant? education would mean to acquire knowledge, broad is only re-emphasizing the same thing.

whereas well-rounded education implies the acquisition of knowledge about many subjects.

I'm curious if this is an American-style discrepancy as I'm American and that's how we often describe education - where are you from, if I might ask?

[toph]

I'm from America as well.

And I understand that "broader" is a comparative, but here's my reasoning for disagreeing with your third point:

The original sentence quotes as, "For this reason, history is said to be an excellent base on which to build a broader education and acquire an informed way of thinking about and looking at the world."

The first half of the sentence, "For this reason, history is said to be an excellent base on which to build a broader education." This part implies that WITH a knowledge in history, one builds a broader education. Therefore, it is automatically assumed by the reader (implied by the author) that WITHOUT a knowledge in history, one lacks a broad education. So...that's the comparison.

Also, when you say "education would mean to acquire knowledge, broad is only re-emphasizing the same thing." Again, I have to disagree with this. First, education is not necessarily an action, as you imply (e.g., education would mean TO acquire knowledge). Honestly, I see it as a noun. So broad is only describing the education that one might have.

As you say, "whereas well-rounded education implies the acquisition of knowledge about many subjects." Broad can easily replace well-rounded in that sentence, because it is only there to describe a person's education (as I just said). If one lacks a well-rounded/broad education, they can simply acquire an informed way of thinking by broadening their resources.

"often times when we write drafts, we will use phrases that come to mind as to what we want to say. that's all fine and well but then the process of editing is to find those phrases and substitute words that define them, thereby making a better sentence." I agree with this 100%, but there wasn't anything grammatically wrong with this sentence. There was some redundancy, and it could have flowed better, yes. But really, the sentence is fine as it is. (Well, with the exception that it needs a comma).

[moosehead]

[Reise-ohne-Ende]

FWIW, toph, I strongly agree with you - and I'm a native American English speaker (from generations of native American English speakers, not that it matters) and a linguist.

moosehead, I just have to disagree with you whole-heartedly. I think the sentence is perfectly fine as written, with the understanding that it's part of a larger essay.

1. The only thing wrong with 'is said to be' is stylistic, not grammatical. There's no need for the passive voice here.
2. toph addressed this one perfectly so I'll leave it there - broader than NOT including history, obvs.
3. I've heard the phrase 'a broad education' enough times for me to consider it a fossilized phrase. In its physical meaning, true, an education can't be 'broad', but you might as well argue against the use of 'about' in a sentence like, "They talked about the car." And trust me, many a grammarian has argued against that usage (oh, look, there's another metaphorical use of a preposition!). Broad - as a metaphor - means wide-ranging. Again, maybe it's not a stylistic choice you prefer, but it's certainly not a grammar problem.
4. 'an informed way of thinking' and 'knowledge' are NOT synonymous. Having knowledge does not mean you interact with the world/society. An informed way of thinking necessitates knowledge, yes, but it also implies that one is using one's knowledge when one approaches new issues.
5. 'thinking about and looking at the world' is NOT redundant, and it's certainly not synonymous with 'knowledge'! Knowledge is passive. You *have* knowledge. 'Thinking about' and 'looking at' the world are active. 'Thinking about the world' implies judgement or interpretation; 'looking at the world' implies observation. From a stylistic point of view, I probably would have switched the verbs: 'looking at and thinking about the world', since one typically looks at before one thinks about. But again, this is a style issue and not a grammar one. Also, as an aside, isn't 'redundant and unnecessary' kind of, well, redundant and unnecessary?

And the new sentence you composed is devoid of a great deal of meaning and doesn't impart any new information to me, the reader, in the way the original sentence does. The original sentence had me thinking about the fact that understanding history allows students a new perspective on the world - a new way of looking at and thinking about it. "history is an excellent base on which to [...] acquire knowledge" doesn't even make very much sense, and certainly doesn't replace the original sentence.

Sorry to make this so long, and I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you. I get really frustrated when people try to police other people's writing unnecessarily, and I get REALLY frustrated when one native speaker assumes that their interpretation of things is the only one possible. Anyway.

[toph]

LOL~ Okay, first of all, what does this have to do with anything:

"Moreover, your insistance on being correct versus understanding the concepts presented (which are done so in effort to impart knowledge, ok?) tend to make me think you are perhaps a gyopo; Korean American, maybe? would that be correct?"

I swear people on Dave's just amaze with what they say sometimes. Hmm...I'm insistent, and refuse to understand the "concepts," therefore I'm gyopo. Ahh, now that's sound logic right there. Actually, this "definition" of gyopo seems to fit you quite well come to think of it. To answer your question--Yes, I am gyopo. But that has nothing to do with this situation at all. My parents' upbringing in Korea have only influenced my cultural heritage. Not my fluency in English. (Oh, and FYI, my father is completely fluent in English, and attended an American university. He even has a Master's degree. So, I really don't have any problem with my English..or rather American-English [as you seem to prefer]). I was born and raised in America. Attended an American school throughout my life with no exceptions. And I've received many awards for my writing ability. (Also, just to point out...you spelled "insistence" INCORRECTLY. So, maybe you should check yo'self before you wreck yo'self).

"First off, "education" is an abstract concept."

I've already mentioned this. But some "abstract concepts" (aka, abstract nouns) can be measured through time. Can it not be said that you started your education at X point and ended at Y, thereby fitting your requirement for the definition of "broad" (e.g., measurable)?

"I've taught writing a number of years and some of my articles have been used in English classes."

Interesting, because I've noticed some grammar problems in your posts. For example, the above sentence requires a comma. And there are other issues in your posts that lead me to question this, or seriously wonder how this became a reality. So maybe you should examine your own grammar problems before your criticize others (although the original issue wasn't a grammar problem, as pointed out. It was a styling issue which was [and still is] ENTIRELY subjective~).

[moosehead]

[Reise-ohne-Ende]

Well apparently you're the only person here who can speak English, so I guess we'll all defer to you.