Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. Ferdie11's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tagalog
      • Home Country:
      • Philippines
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 330
    #1

    is essentially that of

    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.

  2. Ferdie11's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tagalog
      • Home Country:
      • Philippines
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 330
    #2

    Re: is essentially that of

    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.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Jun 2010
    • Posts: 24,492
    #3

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdie11 View Post
    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


    • Join Date: Jun 2010
    • Posts: 70
    #4

    Re: is essentially that of

    You could also write:

    My philosophy is of a Buddhist economist.

  3. Ferdie11's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tagalog
      • Home Country:
      • Philippines
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 330
    #5

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Editors4Writers View Post
    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?


    • Join Date: Jun 2010
    • Posts: 167
    #6

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Editors4Writers View Post
    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.


    • Join Date: Jun 2010
    • Posts: 167
    #7

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdie11 View Post
    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.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Portuguese
      • Home Country:
      • Brazil
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jun 2009
    • Posts: 1,517
    #8

    Re: is essentially that of

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdie11 View Post
    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.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Portuguese
      • Home Country:
      • Brazil
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jun 2009
    • Posts: 1,517
    #9

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Heterological View Post
    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"?


    • Join Date: Jun 2010
    • Posts: 70
    #10

    Re: is essentially that of

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdie11 View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •