Objects of which it is neither correct to assert nor to deny the concept.

[capcap23]

Higher-order vagueness in the usual sense is, on this account, an entirely pragmatic phenomenon, in the sense that it concerns correct assertability and believability. Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept. Source

Is the underlined relative clause grammatical? As far as I understand, "objects of which" is in the position of object, same as "the concept", not subject so It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Higher-order vagueness in the usual sense is, on this account, an entirely pragmatic phenomenon, in the sense that it concerns correct assertability and believability. Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept. Source

Is the underlined relative clause grammatical? As far as I understand, "objects of which" is in the position of object, same as "the concept", not subject so It doesn't make sense to me.

Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept.


I would say that the whole underlined element is a relative clause.

"Which" functions as object of the preposition "of", and has "borderline cases" as antecedent.

We understand that it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept of objects of borderline cases.

 

[capcap23]

Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept.


I would say that the whole underlined element is a relative clause.

"Which" functions as object of the preposition "of", and has "borderline cases" as antecedent.

We understand that it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept of objects of borderline cases.

Is it a typo then? Wouldn't it be more grammatical to use the preposition "of" at the end of "the concept" or "the concept of objects of which ..."?

 

[PaulMatthews]

Is it a typo then? Wouldn't it be more grammatical to use the preposition "of" at the end of "the concept" or "the concept of objects of which ..."?

Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept.

No, it's not a typo: the sentence is a little clumsy but acceptable.

No, you couldn't put "the concept of objects of which", as you suggest.

 

[capcap23]

Typical vague concepts have borderline cases: objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept.

No, you couldn't put "the concept of objects of which", as you suggest.

Is it valid with this sentence as well "objects of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept of"?

 

[capcap23]

No. You need only one 'of'

I have trouble understanding. By "no", do you mean it isn't valid, which means what I wrote is correct, or in general what I wrote is wrong? I'm assuming "of" refers to "objects of which".
and I want to give it a last shot.

"borderline cases: of which it is neither correct to assert (believe) nor to deny (disbelieve) the concept of objects." Do you think this is grammatical and decent sentence?

 

[Tdol]

It makes sense to me, but not much- it isn't profound.

 

[Tarheel]

I guess I'm going to disagree with everybody. I don't see the underlined phrase as a relative clause but as a noun phrase.

(I wouldn't see any reason to read that unless I wanted to give myself a headache.)