[Vocabulary] is essentially that of

[Ferdie11]

Hi,

How would we say the sentence below in other way but has the same meaning?

My philosophy is essentially that of a Buddhist economist.

Many thanks.

 

[Ferdie11]

Hi,

Let me rephrase my question.

Are these sentences interchangeable?

1. My philosophy is essentially that of a Buddhist economist.
2. My philosophy is essentially a Buddhist economist.

Many thanks.

 

[Rover_KE]

Are these sentences interchangeable?

1. My philosophy is essentially that of a Buddhist economist.
2. My philosophy is essentially a Buddhist economist.

No - only the first is grammatically correct.

Rover

 

[Editors4Writers]

You could also write:

My philosophy is of a Buddhist economist.

 

[Ferdie11]

You could also write:

My philosophy is of a Buddhist economist.

Thanks a lot. But, would you tell me why we can't remove the word "of" in the sentence?

 

[Heterological]

You could also write:

My philosophy is of a Buddhist economist.

I think you are mistaken. One may write, "my philosophy is that of a Buddhist Economist," and insert adverbs before "that," but the "that" cannot be omitted.

"My X is essentially/somewhat/more or less/a bit like/exactly that of Y" means that my X is essentially/somewhat/etc. the same as the X belonging to Y. In this case, my philosophy is the same as the philosophy of a Buddhist Economist.

 

[Heterological]

Thanks a lot. But, would you tell me why we can't remove the word "of" in the sentence?

If you removed both "that" and "of," you would be equating a Buddhist economist with a philosophy. A Buddhist economist is a person. He may hold a philosophy, and it may be the same as your philosophy, but he is not your philosophy.

 

[Abstract Idea]

----- I am not an ESL teacher -----

Hi,

Let me rephrase my question.

Are these sentences interchangeable?

1. My philosophy is essentially that of a Buddhist economist.
2. My philosophy is essentially a Buddhist economist.

Many thanks.

The first one has been already told you to be OK.

I see you are struggling with the second one. In order to make it correct, you could say:
My philosophy is essentially a Buddhist economist one.
In this way you assert you follow a Buddhist economist philosophy.

 

[Abstract Idea]

If you removed both "that" and "of," you would be equating a Buddhist economist with a philosophy. A Buddhist economist is a person. He may hold a philosophy, and it may be the same as your philosophy, but he is not your philosophy.

Doesn't it make sense to talk about a "Buddhist economist philosophy"?

 

[Editors4Writers]

Thanks a lot. But, would you tell me why we can't remove the word "of" in the sentence?

Apologies for my late reply. Sometimes the relative pronoun that can be omitted when it refers to people or things in the object position.

"My philosophy is that of a Buddhist economist."

My philosophy is of a Buddhist economist [object position].

Of is a vital component to the meaning of this sentence because it is a preposition that indicates the derivation (source) of your philosophy.

"My philosophy is a Buddhist economist."

It's funny to imagine that an abstract noun such as philosophy having a physical form. This is what happens when you remove the word of from the sentence; you are indicating that your philosophy is literally a Buddhist economist.