http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1678/badsentence.gif
Printable View
The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education, providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.
The relationship of the appositives looks like this:
lack of human contact = -1*(a noted merit of traditional education = providing students...)
-1 = as opposed to
The phrase in brackets defines the opposite of the phrase on the left hand side in the equation, right? In other words, the definer defines the opposite of the defined on the left hand side. This is a minus-apposition, a term I have just invented. What do you think, Frank? :multi:
I have left unresolved so far the function of "as opposed to". Sto eto? Was ist das? What is that? Que es eso? Vad är det?
IMO it is this: explicit indicator of minus-apposition.http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticon-...basketball.gif
"We have normal indicators of apposition, e.g., for example, to wit, that is, namely, in other words, etc.
"(A)s opposed to" is a not normal indicator. It indicates the "minus one times" idea of the preceding appositive.
The participle clause is in normal apposition to "a noted merit of trad. edu."
What we have in this sentence is "more than two units in apposition".
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/658...apposition.gif
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9002/35651801.gif
In MY diagram I treated "providing" as a participle that modifies. I don't really like that, but I keep returning to the need for "-''s" on the end of "education" to clarify that "providing" is a gerund.
The idea that "as opposed to" can be a phrasal preposition is, I don't that, that far out. It can function like "unlike".
I guess your diagram works, but I hate to see the necessity of inventing new symbols.
This is a poorly constructed sentence.
The presence or absence of "-'s" is not necessary for 'providing' to be be considered a gerund. There have been arguments for a century about whether the possessive form is necessary or not with a gerund.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Antonson
I don't go for the gerund interpretation myself in the sentence under discussion, but for different reasons.
I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that.Quote:
This is a poorly constructed sentence.
I know about those arguments.
I fall on the side of the possessive's being useful for clarity. (!)