Proficiency alongside "poverty".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:49 am

the time when
the place where

What's the problem with those?

Spanish:

el lugar donde

French:

l'endroit où

German:

der Ort wo

Italian:

il luogo dove

???

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:00 am

I am truly shocked those are outside your repertoire.
Actually I was expecting you to throw more light on them, as I don't have
a complete grip on it myself.
A TOEFL preparation guide (American publication), was where I first learnt that place where and time when are redundancies.

This is where she studied.
This is the place she studied in.
That was when she met him.
That was the time she met him.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:05 am

Also:
the reason why

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:13 am

A TOEFL preparation guide (American publication), was where I first learnt that place where and time when are redundancies.

No problem with those in BrEng.

Is "where", below, a relative pronoun or an adnominal relative adverb, IYHO?

The place where I study is an old monastery.

And is there redundancy here?

The place at which I work was once a hospital.

This is the place she studied in.

Why did you feel a need to add a preposition there? And is this OK for you?

This is the place in which she studied.

And this?

?This is the place where she studied in.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:32 am

Is "where", below, a relative pronoun or an adnominal relative adverb, IYHO?

The place where I study is an old monastery.

If we want to say the sentence is correct, then we have to say 'where' is a relative pronoun.
As for the rest of your questions, I'd say I am not sure.
I need to do read up more on that.
The redundancies in question will figure in the error-identification section of TOEFL, where the testee is expected to spot the erroneous redundancy.
I also remember a CIEFL professor, who had done his/her homework (I don't remember who exactly) telling us about these redundancies.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:34 am

The redundancies in question will figure in the error-identification section of TOEFL, where the testee is expected to spot the erroneous redundancy.
I also remember a CIEFL professor, who had done his/her homework (I don't remember who exactly) telling us about these redundancies.

Did they tell you why they saw redundancy?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:41 am

I don't remember, but we can guess why.
Just as 'co-' makes the 'together' redundant in 'co-occur together'.
when means time anyway
where refers to place
why indicates reason
I suppose.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:03 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:I don't remember, but we can guess why.
Just as 'co-' makes the 'together' redundant in 'co-occur together'.
when means time anyway
where refers to place
why indicates reason
I suppose.

No, when and where in such sentences, i.e. after nouns referring to times and places, mean at/on which and in/at which relatively. After the word reason, why is used to mean for which.

This is the spread across registers for "the place where" and "the place in which", per million words, according to the BNC:

the place where:

REGISTER

SPOKEN 32
FICTION 200
NEWS 22
ACADEMIC 53
NONFIC MISC63
OTHER MISC 129

the place in which:

REGISTER

SPOKEN 1
FICTION 5
NEWS 1
ACADEMIC 7
NONFIC MISC 1
OTHER MISC 6

Also in the BNC:

the place we met 1
the place where we met 18

If we want to say the sentence is correct, then we have to say 'where' is a relative pronoun.

I'd say they are relative adverbs.

Think about this:

We'll discuss this when I get home.
When I get home, we'll discuss this.

We were talking about the time when Jake dumped Sarah.
*When Jake dumped Sarah, we were talking about the time.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:24 pm

http://community-2.webtv.net/solis-boo/ ... page5.html

4.1 ELLIPTICAL RELATIVE ADVERBS

Sometimes a relative adverb is omitted from the relative clause. In these constructions of omission the relative adverb is understood to be in the clause, though not physically present. Omitting the relative adverb often creates a stronger, more direct, statement; for this reason, many writers prefer omission.

The office is the place (where) you waste most of your life.

These are the times (when) Joan lost her initiative.

Do you know the reason (why) Susan left so suddenly?

There is a subtle tautology, which is probably why sophisticated writers prefer to omit them.
Of course, they are not as tautologous as say 'dvd disc' or 'return back'.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:24 pm

There is a subtle tautology, which is probably why sophisticated writers prefer to omit them.

LOL! Sounds rather prescriptivist. Guess us unsophisticated idiots will have to catch up.

In these constructions of omission the relative adverb is understood to be in the clause, though not physically present.

When would one not want to omit such relative adverbs?

The office is the place you waste most of your life.

To me, that sounds unsophisticated. Sounds like lazy speech. And, if anything is to be omitted, many writers suggest omitting the noun:

The office is where you waste most of your life.

The office is the place where you waste most of your life.

So, if I want to modify the verb waste, what should I do?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:51 am

LOL! Sounds rather prescriptivist.

Prescriptivist?
Actually how do you define presriptivist/descriptivist?
Whatever Metal approves is descriptivist and whatever Metal doesn't approve is prescriptivist?
Sounds like Russell's paradox.
A prescriptivist saying he is a descriptivist

Reacting to change, clinging on to conventions adamantly, mocking at what is new are prescriptivist traits, in my non humble
opinion.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:49 am

Anuradha Chepur, do you think that an expression such as "sophisticated writers" is scientific, objective?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:12 am

What is so unscientific or unobjective about that expession?

Haven't you come across good and bad compositions?
Isn't that quote in the OP an example of bad writing?
Don't you call it "poverty"?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:45 am

Anuradha Chepur, let's take your comment above at face value.

1. If, as you say, sophisticated, your words, writers choose to omit relative adverbs, would that mean that writers who choose not to do so are unsophisticated?

2. Would you advise omitting such adverbs at every opportunity? If so, why? If not, why not?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:47 am

Isn't that quote in the OP an example of bad writing?
Don't you call it "poverty"?

Note the quotation marks:

Proficiency alongside "poverty".