Results 1 to 4 of 4

    • Join Date: Nov 2008
    • Posts: 26
    #1

    There seems to be an error in this extract

    The chapter argues the need for a policy on the part of the international
    community which distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis where it is argued that the appropriate response will be the provision of finance, within the constraints available, supplemented, if need be, by lending, by capital flow standstills and by lending into arrears.

    There seems to be a utter lack of parallelism (distinguish between...) that seems to make this sentence incorrect. This extract, it is from a book called "The IMF and it critics" co-authored by several people. Can you explain me why it seems wrong?


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #2

    Re: There seems to be an error in this extract

    Quote Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post
    The chapter argues the need for a policy on the part of the international
    community which distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis – where it is argued that the appropriate response will be the provision of finance, within the constraints available, supplemented, if need be, by lending, by capital flow standstills and by lending into arrears.

    There seems to be a utter lack of parallelism (distinguish between...) that seems to make this sentence incorrect. This extract, it is from a book called "The IMF and it critics" co-authored by several people. Can you explain me why it seems wrong?
    This sentence is very badly written, IMO. Is this really one sentence?! Impenetrable.

    community which..., for whom

    My reading is which and whom should have the same referent. And therein lies the rub. Which refers to things; whom to individuals, people.

    In my opinion, which is meant to refer to policy, whom to the int. community. (lack of parallelism)
    Last edited by svartnik; 06-Jan-2009 at 07:02.


    • Join Date: Nov 2008
    • Posts: 26
    #3

    Re: There seems to be an error in this extract

    Do you think it is an error then?

    Do you need the whole extract? I have the book with me.


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #4

    Re: There seems to be an error in this extract

    Hello

    Yes, the sentence is not grammatical.


    The chapter argues the need for a policy on the part of the international
    community which distinguishes between countries that are in a state of solvency crisis.



    for whom (=for the international community)

    This part is dangling in midair.

    [I]it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis – where it is argued that the appropriate response will be the provision of finance, within the constraints available, supplemented, if need be, by lending, by capital flow standstills and by lending into arrears.

    I am at the end of my tether and have drawn a blank in terms of unravelling the threads of the sentence.
    Economic literature is tough for lay cultures, especially when it is poorly written.

Similar Threads

  1. An extract from C.V.
    By YouSteen in forum CVs, Resumes and Applications
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2008, 05:49
  2. Please check this extract from my blog !!!
    By hookeba in forum Editing & Writing Topics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Mar-2006, 07:05
  3. extract entitled...
    By AlainK in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-Sep-2005, 13:10

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
  •