a matter of principle

[YAMATO2201]

For two or three days Madame Berger looked dreadfully worried, but then, whatever the difficulty was, it was settled; she dismissed, however, the maid to keep whom had been almost a matter of principle.

(Source: an entrance examination to a Japanese university)

Does the underlined part imply that Madame Berger had thought until the dismissal that keeping the maid was almost the right thing to do?

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes. She hadn't necessarily kept the maid in her employ because she was a great maid but purely on principle.

 

[GoesStation]

For two or three days Madame Berger looked dreadfully worried, but then, whatever the difficulty was, it was settled; she dismissed, however, the maid to keep whom had been almost a matter of principle.

In case this isn't obvious: no native speaker would ever write or say that sentence. I see it's a quotation from something written in the nineteenth century and translated in 1903.

 

[jutfrank]

Honestly, it doesn't sound right at all to me. I would say that it doesn't even make sense.

However, it seems that emsr2d2 did somehow make sense of it, so let's see what other members think ...

 

[YAMATO2201]

In case this isn't obvious: no native speaker would ever write or say that sentence. I see it's a quotation from something written in the nineteenth century and translated in 1903.

Has the English language changed tremendously since the end of the 19th century?

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes.

 

[YAMATO2201]

For two or three days Madame Berger looked dreadfully worried, but then, whatever the difficulty was, it was settled; she dismissed, however, the maid to keep whom had been almost a matter of principle.

Is the underlined part considered to be ungrammatical in today's English?

 

[emsr2d2]

Is the underlined part considered to be ungrammatical in today's English?

No. It would, however, sound old-fashioned and some people would have trouble understanding it.

 

[YAMATO2201]

For two or three days Madame Berger looked dreadfully worried, but then, whatever the difficulty was, it was settled; she dismissed, however, the maid to keep whom had been almost a matter of principle.

It would, however, sound old-fashioned

Is it OK to replace the "to keep whom" with "whose employment"?

For two or three days Madame Berger looked dreadfully worried, but then, whatever the difficulty was, it was settled; she dismissed, however, the maid whose employment had been almost a matter of principle.

 

[emsr2d2]

You could change it to "whose continued employment". Her original employment wasn't a matter of principle but keeping her on as a maid was.

 

[YAMATO2201]

As a matter of principle, she does not use an English-Japanese dictionary.

Is this sentence correct?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it's fine. What part were you concerned about?

 

[YAMATO2201]

What part were you concerned about?

The position of "As a matter of principle". Is the following version natural?

She does not use an English-Japanese dictionary, as a matter of principle.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's grammatical, but unnatural. No obvious principle is involved there.

This is natural:

Unlike a lot of his colleagues, Lou Flushing doesn't pilfer stuff from work – like pens, teaspoons and toilet rolls – as a matter of principle.

 

[Matthew Wai]

No obvious principle is involved there.

I think the principle is that a learner should not rely on their native language to learn English.
An English dictionary, rather than an English-Japanese one, should be used.

She does not use an English-Japanese dictionary, as a matter of principle.

I would omit the comma before "as a matter of principle" when it is used at the end.

 

[jutfrank]

It's grammatical, but unnatural. No obvious principle is involved there.

I agree with Matthew Wai, above. There is an obvious principle.