in him

[YAMATO2201]

But in an old man who has known human joys and sorrows, and has achieved whatever work it was in him to do, the fear of death is somewhat abject and ignoble.

(Source: 英文標準問題精講)

Does "in him" mean "within the scope of his ability"?

 

[emsr2d2]

(Source: 英文標準問題精講)

That is not a source. It is neither a hyperlink, nor the title and author of the sentence in English.

 

[YAMATO2201]

I forgot to provide the author's name.

英文標準問題精講 is the title of a book written by 原 仙作.

 

[nigele2]

YAMATO2201 you need to work with the moderators here. They really want to help you, but protecting this site is very important. If the moderators do not, then the site could go the same way as many other sites. Deleted due to copyright breach. And then we could help no one.

I’ll meet you halfway; the title appears to be "English Standard Questions". Could you confirm the title and give us the name of the author as best represented in the English alphabet?

Then I want to get to grips with that interesting question of yours.

 

[YAMATO2201]

Could you confirm the title and give us the name of the author as best represented in the English alphabet?

Thanks, nigele2.

The book is a collection of excerpts from books and examination papers. It clearly states that the quote is from How to Grow Old by Bertrand Russel, so there is no copyright infringement.

The "精講" in the title is NOT in my Japanese-English dictionary, so it is hard for me to translate the title into English. (My English is probably at CEFR A2 level.) My attempt is:

英文標準問題精講 = 英文(English Sentence) + 標準問題(Standard Question) + 精講(Exposition).

Considering the content of the book, the following might be one possible translation:

An Exposition of English Sentences — for Japanese high school students

---------------------------------------------------------

In retrospect, I think I should have paid attention to the whole phrase "whatever work it was in him to do" rather than "in him".

Please forget the question in the OP. ;-)

 

[jutfrank]

(My English is probably at CEFR A2 level.)

Are you kidding?! It's way above that!

 

[nigele2]

“whatever work it was in him to do” . A quote from the essay "How to grow old" by Bertrand Russell.

As a human being the man had potential. A potential to do (good) work. Maybe due to his fundamental abilities. He has now, presumably in old age, met his full potential. Achieved that which he could reasonably achieve.

So we could replace the quote with “his full potential”.

If we extend the quote we see the bigger picture: “in an old man who has known human joys and sorrows, and has achieved whatever work it was in him to do, the fear of death is somewhat abject and ignoble.

So, he has experienced the full "joys and sorrows of life", and achieved his full potential. Russell is saying that such a man cannot justifiably fear death. (How I wish I could be described in those terms.)

I think Bertrand Russell wrote this quite late in his life. Possibly when he was 81? That would make the year 1953, more or less.

Why did Russell use this particular style and phraseology at this time? Is he using archaic language, just being ‘arty’, or making a point? The problem with genius is that it can be very hard to interpret.

 

[Tdol]

Does "in him" mean "within the scope of his ability"?

ເຈົ້າ

Or yes, if you'd like something easier on the eye. :up:

 

[jutfrank]

Why did Russell use this particular style and phraseology at this time? Is he using archaic language, just being ‘arty’, or making a point?

I don't think there's any archaic language here, and Russell always wrote and spoke with such a literary style. He's certainly making a point, of course.

The phrase to be in me/him/her/etc is commonly used to mean within the scope of one's ability/nature.

 

[capcap23]

The phrase to be in me/him/her/etc is commonly used to mean within the scope of one's ability/nature.

Why doesn't this phrase take the whole object?

whatever it is in him to do work. It makes me confused to take only a part of object while leaving the rest as they are.

 

[jutfrank]

Why doesn't this phrase take the whole object?

whatever it is in him to do work. It makes me confused to take only a part of object while leaving the rest as they are.

You can follow the phrase with a 'to-infinitive':

It's just not in him to murder.

The original sentence has a tricky structure, which is probably what is confusing you. The object of do is whatever work (to do whatever work was in him).

 

[jutfrank]

[who] has achieved whatever work it was in him to do

Thinking about this more, I'm now doubting whether the object of do is whatever work, as I said in post #12. The problem (for me) is mainly the word it. We would naturally say: It's not in him to do this kind of work, where it refers to the infinitive phrase to do this kind of work.

Anyway, I now think the use of do is possibly as a substitute for achieve. So we could rephrase as:

[who] has achieved whatever was in him to achieve

or:

[who] has achieved whatever (it was that) was in him to achieve

However, this analysis does not include the idea of work, so I think a different analysis could be:

[who] has achieved whatever work (that) was in him to do

or even:

[who] has achieved whatever work it (was that) was in him to do

If these last two are what Russell was thinking, then the object of achieve is essentially work, which doesn't sound right. Could somebody please untangle this confusing syntax?! Does do relate to work or to achieve? Is the sentence strictly grammatical with it?

(Sorry if I've given any wrong information or caused any confusion by editing this post so many times.)

 

[capcap23]

Since you made it clear for me, I think the subject ''it'' is dummy.

The work that it is in him to do ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ . I don't know I can be of help as I'm not native speaker but both phrases ''the work that it is in him to do'' and ''the work that is in him to do'' work in the same way for me in the view of learner.

 

[jutfrank]

Since you made it clear for me, I think the subject ''it'' is dummy.

The work that it is in him to do ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ . I don't know I can be of help as I'm not native speaker but both phrases ''the work that it is in him to do'' and ''the work that is in him to do'' work in the same way for me in the view of learner.

Okay, good. Of course, it's not really important whether the syntax is correct, as long as you understand the general sense of the sentence.

 

[YAMATO2201]

Whatever adjective
1 a : any ... that: all ... that
(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

(1) The man has achieved any work. + It was in him to do it.
(it refers to any work.)
||
(2) The man has achieved any work that it was in him to do.
||
(3) The man has achieved any work that it was in him to do.
||
(4) The man has achieved whatever work it was in him to do.
(whatever = any ... that)

 

[Phaedrus]

"Young men who have reason to fear that they will be killed in battle may justifiably feel bitter in the thought that they have been cheated of the best things that life has to offer. But in an old man who has known human joys and sorrows, and has achieved whatever work it was in him to do, the fear of death is somewhat abject and ignoble."

- Bertrand Russell (link to source)

Let me take a stab at it. Here's how I parse the phrase in question:

1. "Whatever work it was in him to do" is a free relative clause (a noun phrase) functioning as the direct object of "has achieved."

2. "Whatever work" is a noun phrase contained in the free relative clause. Within that noun phase, "whatever" functions as a determiner.

3. The noun phrase "whatever work" functions within the free relative clause as the direct object of "(to) do."

4. "It" is a dummy used for the sake of extraposition: "To do whatever work was in him" <--> "It was in him to do whatever work."

5. It might help to look at it with a normal relative clause as opposed to a free relative clause: "has achieved that work which it was in him to do."

6. I myself would have used a slightly different structure ("had it in him to"): "has achieved whatever work he had it in him to achieve."

 

[YAMATO2201]

A potential to do (good) work.

Is there any significant difference in meaning between the following four versions?

1) whatever work it was in him to do (the original version)

2) whatever work he had it in him to do

3) whatever work he had the potential to do

4) whatever work he was capable of doing

 

[jutfrank]

Is there any significant difference in meaning between the following four versions?

1) whatever work it was in him to do (the original version)

2) whatever work he had it in him to do

3) whatever work he had the potential to do

4) whatever work he was capable of doing

In this context, no.

But the word potential usually implies that something doesn't happen.