To tdol

[Taka]

The sentences:

We hear of the scientific methods of some prize-fighter, and a book has been published on the Science of the Sacraments. There is nothing in the laws of any country which forbids its citizens from giving to the words of their language such significance as the may choose, but science and scientific as employed in these connections have no relation to the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal .

About "we have here to deal", is it:

have here to deal=must deal here ?

What puzzles me is the intervening "here". If you say "things which we have here to do", does it mean "things which we must do here"? I guess not. I think it's "we have things to do here"

As for "the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal", if it were:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge which we have here to deal with"

I would interpret it as:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with".

But it's :

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal".

So is it possible to change:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with "

into:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal"?

If it had a "prepositon+noun" construction, I think it is possible to make it "preposition+which". But in "we have it here to deal with ", the preposition "with" and the noun "it=the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge" are distant from each other. Still is it possible to make it "preposition+which"?

And an additional question. Is it possible to say "we have here to do it" to mean "we have to do it here"?

[Tdol]

It's a formal usage and the position may look strange. To me,it hasa rhetoricalsound, but the movement doesn't affect the meaning,IMO. It's perfectly possible to have preposition + which,though most would shove the reposition at the end. Presumably, 'here' serves to focus the reader on the text in hand and the meaning of the word in this context rather than the everday use\abuse of it. 'Here' has bgeen moved because it would be stranded by the earlyposition of the preposition.

I don'tsee such a great distance between the relative pronoun and the noun phrase it refers to.

[Taka]

(1) So, it's not "have to (=must)" but "have"?


(2)

Originally Posted by tdol

it would be stranded by the early position of the preposition.

What do you mean by "stranded by the early position of the preposition"?


(3)

Originally Posted by tdol

I don't see such a great distance between the relative pronoun and the noun phrase it refers to.

The distance I'm talking about is that of the object of "have" and the preposition "with".

Example:

She is the woman.+I told you about her.=>She is the woman about whom I told you.

Here, the prepositon "about" and the noun "her" are next to each other. And I thought such propinquity was required for the "prep+which/whom" construction.

However, if the original sentence I posted is:

the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with

the preposition "with" and the noun "it" are not; they are distant from each other. Regardless of such separation, is it still possible to make it:

the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal

?

[Taka]

tdol?

[Tdol]

It's ambiguous as to whether it is 'have to' or 'have'. I think both interpretations are possible. I'm not sure that there is such a fixed propinquity rule.

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

I'm not sure that there is such a fixed propinquity rule.

Really?

Then could you show me another example of "[noun...(intervening words)...preposition]=[preposition which/whom...(intervening words)]"?