Werbung
LEO

Sie scheinen einen AdBlocker zu verwenden.

Wollen Sie LEO unterstützen?

Dann deaktivieren Sie AdBlock für LEO, spenden Sie oder nutzen Sie LEO Pur!

 
  •  
  • Betreff

    Take graft ...

    Quellen
    Take graft, in which Chicago, the US's "corruption capital", can match anywhere in its hemisphere.

    FT
    Kommentar
    This may be more of a Sprachlabor question, but I'm interested just in the English.

    Do any native speakers find anything wrong with the sentence above? Thanks for any candid input, just off the top of your head.
    Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 02:30
    Kommentar
    I would add only that it can match anything in Europe as well.
    #1Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 21 Feb. 11, 02:32
    Kommentar
    :-)

    But Bob C., very glad you are here. I'm thinking more in regards to the grammar.
    #2Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 02:33
    Kommentar
    One could change anywhere to anything with some benefit.
    #3Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 21 Feb. 11, 02:42
    Kommentar
    That would be very good, since "graft" is the subject, right?

    I'm missing a "for example", or ... I can't pinpoint it. The sentence doesn't flow for me. Using your idea and mine:

    Take graft, for example, in which Chicago, the US's "corruption capital", can match anything in its hemisphere.

    Aeaeae. Dunno. In the second part of the sentence (in #0, OP) he makes "Chicago" into the subject, I think.
    #4Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 02:50
    Kommentar
    Where are we going with this?
    #5Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 21 Feb. 11, 03:19
    Kommentar
    Where are we going with this? LOL!!!
    #6Verfasser SD3 (451227) 21 Feb. 11, 04:00
    Kommentar
    And yet again, the sentence needs to be read in context which opine has failed to supply. The article is comparing Chicago with Lima:

    "An overbearing caudillo concentrating power in his own hands is standard fare in Latin America, but this is far from the only similarity. Take graft, in which Chicago, the US’s “corruption capital”, can match anywhere in its hemisphere. Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Mr Obama’s vacant Senate seat was even more brazen than Alberto Fujimori’s fleecing of Peru before fleeing and resigning by fax.
    Or consider finances. ..."
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42980474-3b94-11e0-...

    The article is comparing places (hence the "anywhere" not "anything") and doesn't need a "for example" because following on from the previous sentence "graft" and then "finances" are obviously being given as other examples of similarity.

    I don't think this needs to go any further at all, especially in the wrong forum.
    #7Verfasser Marianne (BE) (237471) 21 Feb. 11, 07:28
    Kommentar
    I listed the source. I didn't want to include too much, since I wanted to see how native English speakers perceive/respond to that sentence. It still sounds odd to me. My objective was to get gut reactions, which I alluded to in my OP.

    "Take graft" sounds like an imperative, and after that, it doesn't flow for me, in AE.

    Usually one would say: Take XXX as an example ...

    If not, after "Take graft" there is no comma needed, IMHO.

    Take graft in which Chicago ... (without comma after graft)

    In other words: "Take graft that Chicago, the US's 'corruption capital', can match anywhere in its hemisphere."

    In that case, "anywhere" works.
    #8Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 07:40
    Kommentar
    @ 8 - No, it really does need a comma there. How about if we recast the sentence? Example:

    Consider graft, a pursuit in which Chicago is a match for/can contend with/rivals any other city in the Western Hemisphere.

    Your sentence "Take graft that Chicago, the US's 'corruption capital', can match anywhere in its hemisphere" doesn't work. Perhaps "take the graft in which" – but that's wordy and may unnecessarily stress "graft." One expects some counterpoint later, in that case.

    You're right that "take" is an imperative, just like "consider" in my attempt above. That in itself is beside the point.

    To me the only jarring note in the original sentence is the use of "anywhere," which I automatically read as "any other place" instead. And "the US's" sounds like the way people talk, but I'm not sure I'd welcome it in print. Both are exceedingly minor points and wouldn't trip me up if I read them in what I knew to be a non-AE publication.
    #9VerfasserKatydid (US) (694445) 21 Feb. 11, 08:48
    Kommentar
    Thanks tons, Katydid.

    This is brilliant from you, #9: Consider graft, a pursuit in which Chicago is a match for/can contend with/rivals any other city in the Western Hemisphere.

    You did it with one comma! (You should compete on that show: I can write that sentence with one comma.)

    I really like the way your re-wrote that. And, your explanation helps me understand the first comma that the FT writer used.

    Bob C. did bring up the anywhere/anything issues. I also thought about the "US's" usage, but chalked it up to BE.

    Thanks again for a thoughtful response.
    #10Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 09:04
    Kommentar
    Opine, "FT" is not sufficient to indicate the source for most of us. Good on Marianne that she could decipher it and also find the quotation.

    I would just like to point out that the original sentence contains the grammatical misuse of anywhere. It can stand, grammtically correct, with the simple substitution of anything for anywhere.

    Take graft, in which Chicago, the US's "corruption capital", can match anything in its hemisphere.

    It could also stand, without further change, if the in is deleted.

    Take graft, which Chicago, the US's "corruption capital", can match anywhere in its hemisphere.

    One can also rewrite the sentence ad libidum, but from the point of view of grammar and sense, either of those two minimal alterations will suffice and no other recourse is required.
    #11Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 21 Feb. 11, 18:07
    Kommentar
    Thanks again Bob C. Just removing the "in" is interesting. It changes it for me so that it flows a bit better.
    #12Verfasseropine (680211) 21 Feb. 11, 22:08
    Kommentar
    Hi Bob C.
    I was going to let this one go but I really don't agree with either of your *alterations* in #11.
    It’s not “anything” – that changes the meaning entirely – it’s “anywhere”, meaning “any place”.
    Flow for opine notwithstanding, the “in” is necessary – “in which” = “in graft”.
    =>Chicago (a place full of corruption) can match any other place in the Western (or Northern :-) hemisphere in graft.

    Let me try and explain by paring down the sentences (original first, yours second).
    First of all we could remove from both sentences the merely descriptive “the US’s corruption capital” between the commas:
    Take graft, in which Chicago can match anywhere in its hemisphere.
    Take graft, which Chicago can match anywhere in its hemisphere.


    Then let’s put “any place” instead of "anywhere":
    Take graft, in which Chicago can match any place in its hemisphere.
    Take graft, which Chicago can match any place in its hemisphere.


    And then let’s substitute a specific place (for sake of argument, Lima, the starting point of the article) for “anywhere/any place in its hemisphere”:

    Take graft, in which Chicago can match Lima.
    Take graft, which Chicago can match Lima.
     

    And now substituting "graft" for "which":

    in graft Chicago can match Lima
    graft Chicago can match Lima


    => Chicago can match Lima in graft.
    => Chicago can match Lima graft.
    ???

    I think you need the "in" for it to make any sense ...
    #13Verfasser Marianne (BE) (237471) 22 Feb. 11, 09:24
    Kommentar
    Hi Marianne, Bob C. will have to answer your questions, I guess. You didn't really ask one though. In the interim ...

    ... answer me this. Do you consider graft to be synonymous with these: bribery/favors/racketeering? Does one need to use "in" with each? Bob C.'s explanation makes sense to me, as does Katydid's, but I get lost in yours, and I'm wondering if this is a BE/AE thing. Your breakdown is interesting, but not conclusive, regarding the heart of the matter. But it's a BE writer, AFAIK, so maybe it's natural to you, the way it was written.
    #14Verfasseropine (680211) 22 Feb. 11, 10:12
    VorschlagGraft = Bribery
    Quellen
    synonym
    Kommentar
    i had to look up the definition of graft, and i'm a native speaker.
    'Bribery' may be a better word as the meaning is clearer.
    #15VerfasserMcPfeifer22 Feb. 11, 10:20
    Kommentar
    How can you get lost in that perfectly crystal-clear explanation? And yes, "graft" is roughly synonomous with bribery, etc., and you would need the "in" with those words as well, because whatever word you use, it is representative of a field or an area. Chicago is outstanding in (the field of) graft.

    Take graft, (a field) in which Chicago can match...

    The only change I would make to the original sentence might be to add "for example". Take graft, for example, in which...
    #16Verfasser the kat (387522) 22 Feb. 11, 10:21
    Quellen
    Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
    "graft2 noun 1 colloq hard work. 2 slang a the use of illegal or unfair means to gain profit or advantage, especially by politicians or officials; b the profit or advantage gained.
    http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/feat...
    Kommentar
    Let's go back to the original article (excerpt repeated here so you don't have to scroll up again):

    "An overbearing caudillo concentrating power in his own hands is standard fare in Latin America, but this is far from the only similarity. Take graft, in which Chicago, the US’s “corruption capital”, can match anywhere in its hemisphere. Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Mr Obama’s vacant Senate seat was even more brazen than Alberto Fujimori’s fleecing of Peru before fleeing and resigning by fax.
    Or consider finances. ..."
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42980474-3b94-11e0-...

    #15: Yes, graft can mean bribery but it encompasses much more (= the unscrupulous use of power, money, or position, especially by politicians). In the paragraph above, neither "Rodd Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Mr Obama’s vacant Senate seat" nor "Alberto Fujimori’s fleecing of Peru before fleeing and resigning by fax" can be described as bribery, so it wouldn't be a better word here.
    #17Verfasser Marianne (BE) (237471) 22 Feb. 11, 10:38
    Kommentar
    #17 - well played, sir.
    #18VerfasserMcPfeifer22 Feb. 11, 10:42
    Kommentar
    Just for the record, the kat, #16, I suggested "..., for example, ...", in my #4.
    I also thought that would be a clarifying quick-fix to the sentence.
    #19Verfasseropine (680211) 22 Feb. 11, 11:10
    Kommentar
    My answer to the question "Do any native speakers find anything wrong with the sentence above?" No, I do not. I understood it on first reading and find it to be grammatically correct.
    #20Verfasser SD3 (451227) 22 Feb. 11, 12:01
    Quellen
    native briton
    Kommentar
    #20: its is grammatically correct in itself, but it doesn't exactly flow properly.
    #9's rework of the sentence is better.
    #21VerfasserMcPfeifer22 Feb. 11, 12:10
    Kommentar
    @21: but it doesn't exactly flow properly
    That's obviously a question of opinion, and mine is that it flows just fine. But if people have the time and the inclination to rewrite newspaper articles, I think they should just go ahead. :-)
    #22Verfasser SD3 (451227) 22 Feb. 11, 12:25
    Kommentar
    ^The essence of questioning is in and of itself inherently important.
    ^To question the writing in a periodical is part of the freedom we call speech.
    ^I am not alone in thinking there may be something a tad amiss with the original.
    #23Verfasseropine (680211) 22 Feb. 11, 12:34
    Kommentar
    #21 There is nothing wrong with either the grammar or the flow of the original.
    Of course, it does help if you know what graft means ;-)
    #24Verfasser Marianne (BE) (237471) 22 Feb. 11, 12:36
    Kommentar
    #24, That still doesn't make the grammar in BE work in AE, and that gets often thrown under the rug.
    I do hope you feel smug under yours! ;-)
    #25Verfasseropine (680211) 22 Feb. 11, 12:37
    Kommentar
    Doris! Please put a stop to this nonsense.
    #26Verfasser SD3 (451227) 22 Feb. 11, 12:46
    Kommentar
    Marianne, in the original sentence, for clarity's sake, one can delete not only the US's corruption capital but take as well.

    . . . graft, in which Chicago . . . can match anywhere in its hemisphere.

    which, as you correctly note, can be rearranged as

    In graft, Chicago can match anywhere in its hemisphere.

    Is that what you meant to say? If so, it would seem we agree that anywhere (an adverb) is grammatically wrong (you can't match an adverb, only a thing), so anywhere must be replaced with a noun, including any place, anything, any city, or even Lima.

    (If you don't like anything, I have no objection, even though I do not see it as inappropriate here.)

    But one can also simply omit the initial In and say

    Chicago can match graft anywhere in its hemisphere.
    Chicago can match graft in Lima.

    Although if it were my sentence, I would prefer

    Chicago can match the graft of any city in its hemisphere.
    #27Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 22 Feb. 11, 19:27
    Kommentar
    Bob, and what if "anywhere" isn't an adverb?
    http://www.answers.com/topic/anywhere
    http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/feat...

    We are simply going to have to agree to disagree here.
    #28Verfasser Marianne (BE) (237471) 22 Feb. 11, 22:58
    Kommentar
    So you think it's a noun in that sentence?
    #29Verfasser Bob C. (254583) 23 Feb. 11, 00:27
    Kommentar
    Good point, Marianne. Maybe that's part of the whole issue. It's interesting
    that chambersharrap lists anywhere as either adverb or pronoun.
    M-W says it's either adverb or noun.

    I would think it's more of a pronoun, the way the writer originally wrote it.
    Is the writer matching the graft, or matching the city?
    I guess the former would take "anything" and the latter "anywhere". Hmmm.

    #13, Marianne wrote:
    => Chicago can match Lima in graft.
    => Chicago can match Lima graft.???
    I think you need the "in" for it to make any sense ...


    #27, Bob. C wrote:
    But one can also simply omit the initial In and say
    Chicago can match graft anywhere in its hemisphere.
    Chicago can match graft in Lima.


    I think you can leave that "in" out, Marianne, as Bob shows.
    And, in Bob's last example, just pop the Lima before "graft"
    and eliminate that "in", and you have the same thing.

    This makes sense to me: Chicago can match Lima graft.

    What if it were about "style" or "cuisine" or "flair"?
    -- Miami can match LA style.
    -- New Orleans can match Manhattan cuisine.
    -- Buenos Aires can match Paris flair.

    Those all make sense to me without "in". Or is there something
    that says the verb has to be: to match in sth.?
    #30Verfasseropine (680211) 23 Feb. 11, 01:10
    Kommentar
    Re: 30, I think the "in" is necessary in all those sentences. Or possessives --> Chicago can match Lima's graft. Then, too, perhaps it's a problem with the parallel construction. I would have no issue with "Even downmarket Miami streetwear can match LA style" or "New Orleans po' boys give Paris cuisine a run for its money." There, it's not the whole city on one side of the equation against a single characteristic of a different city on the other.

    Like Bob C., I have a stylistic issue with matching "anywhere," but not a grammatical one. I'm generally fine with "anywhere" as a noun:
    I don't have anywhere to put it.
    From here you can see anywhere in the city.


    Your question: Is the writer matching the graft, or matching the city?
    The writer has Chicago matching some unnamed other city in terms of graft.
    #31VerfasserKatydid (US) (694445) 23 Feb. 11, 01:40
    Kommentar
    Thanks Katydid. You always have a fresh take on things that makes me think, and is easy-breezy Katydid style
    (that was a big compliment!). Curious to see how Marianne and Bob view this.

    In this example: Miami can match LA style.
    Isn't it just a shortened version of: Miami (style) can match LA style.
    In other words, it's understood that style is being compared? (style gets dropped)
    But that may just be bad style^^.

    Anyway, thanks again for another perspective. As you know, I don't like to be too confined by language.
    #32Verfasseropine (680211) 23 Feb. 11, 01:58
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
 
 
  automatisch zu   umgewandelt