View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-Jul-2007, 15:28
cabledetached cabledetached is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: USA
Posts: 9
Current Location: Japan
First Language: English
Member Type: English Teacher
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
cabledetached is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Grammar problem with "to"

Hi Casiopea,


Thanks for the reply. This is a very interesting thread. I now see the advantage to having parallel constructions in some situations. At the same time, I'm still struggling with a few of your points. I'm relatively new to this whole English teaching deal, so please bear with me.

1. By your example:

The eggs must be broken
<passive>
to make an omelet <active>

What makes the adverbial phrase active? I see no agent. Is it simply that the verb precedes the object?

I can see how it can be changed to passive,

so that an omelet [is/can be] made

because passive voice doesn't require an agent in some circumstances. I always thought active voice needed an agent. Can you please clarify?

2. Speaking of the agentless passive, are there any instances in which the use of non-parallel constructions is preferred or even required?

For example:

Native Americans were systematically displaced <passive>
to make room for white settlers. <active>

This sentence seems perfectly fine to me, even though the constructions are not parallel. It gives me no pause. If I change the the main clause to active,

The US government systematically displaced Native Americans...

I shift focus away from the patient (Native Americans) and introduce an agent that may be redundant (obvious from context or assumed to be known, for example). Assuming that I like to keep the main clause passive, what are my options if I want to maintain parallel structure? Check out:

so that room could be made for white settlers - passive, but clumsy
so that room for white settlers could be made - same
so that white settlers could have room made for them - ?ugh. I don't even think this one is parallel
so that white settlers could be accommodated - Aha! This one is passive and elegant. It looks like a winner.

But is it really that much better than the original? It rewords the phrase in a way that shifts focus toward "white settlers" and away from the action "to make room", which I'm not sure I want to do.

What do you think? Am I just splitting hairs?

The thing is, lately my students have been stumping me with questions I'm not able to answer, so I appreciate anyone's input.

Cheers
Reply With Quote