Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. suprunp's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Ukrainian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine

    • Join Date: Apr 2011
    • Posts: 596
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    without losing their XXX of life and YYY

    Jude thought with a feeling of sickness that though this might be true to some extent, for all that he knew, many unsophisticated girls would and did go to towns and remain there for years without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments. Others, alas, had an instinct towards artificiality in their very blood, and became adepts in counterfeiting at the first glimpse of it.
    (T. Hardy: Jude the Obscure)

    This is said when Jude finds out that his wife has an artificial plait, which I consider an embellishment.

    I read the part in bold as follows:
    without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.

    Can this construction be viewed differently?
    ("Jude the Obscure" was just an incitement to me to ask this question, therefore when I say "viewed differently" I do not mean in this particular context, but rather in general.)


    without losing their XXX of life and YYY.

    1. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY
    2. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their XXX of YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY
    3. without losing their XXX of life and without YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY

    1. without losing their simplicity of life and dignity = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their dignity.
    2. without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.
    3. without losing their simplicity of life and depravation* = without losing their simplicity of life and without depravation.

    Are all these variants possible?

    Thanks.

    *Depravation
    1. The action or fact of making or becoming depraved, bad, or corrupt; deterioration, degeneration, esp. moral deterioration; an instance of this.
    OED

  2. bhaisahab's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Apr 2008
    • Posts: 25,278
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #2

    Re: without losing their XXX of life and YYY

    Quote Originally Posted by suprunp View Post
    Jude thought with a feeling of sickness that though this might be true to some extent, for all that he knew, many unsophisticated girls would and did go to towns and remain there for years without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments. Others, alas, had an instinct towards artificiality in their very blood, and became adepts in counterfeiting at the first glimpse of it.
    (T. Hardy: Jude the Obscure)

    This is said when Jude finds out that his wife has an artificial plait, which I consider an embellishment.

    I read the part in bold as follows:
    without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.

    Can this construction be viewed differently?
    ("Jude the Obscure" was just an incitement to me to ask this question, therefore when I say "viewed differently" I do not mean in this particular context, but rather in general.)


    without losing their XXX of life and YYY.

    1. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY No.
    2. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their XXX of YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY Yes.
    3. without losing their XXX of life and without YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY No.

    1. without losing their simplicity of life and dignity = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their dignity. No.
    2. without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments. Yes.
    3. without losing their simplicity of life and depravation* = without losing their simplicity of life and without depravation. No.

    Are all these variants possible?

    Thanks.
    Bhai.

Similar Threads

  1. [Grammar] Which is correct? how many xxx are there or how many xxx are in...
    By tais_n in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2011, 15:02
  2. emerge from xxx to xxx
    By panicmonger in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2010, 15:27
  3. [Grammar] Talking of xxx, China is a xxx--accepted dangling?
    By LiuJing in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2010, 19:01
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-Jul-2009, 21:42
  5. [Grammar] xxx speaking vs this is xxx
    By cynthialang in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-Apr-2009, 20:11

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
  •