Is "that of" in this sentence redundant?

[Andy Lin]

Source: Linux kernel design patterns - part 1

Context:

「One of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community is that of maintaining quality」


Is that of in this sentence redundant?

What the difference between this sentence with that of and sentence without that of?

 

[Tdol]

It's not redundant to me- it makes it clear that maintaining quality is the topic and not that the topic is doing well.

 

[Raymott]

It shouldn't be misunderstood without "that of". And the correct reading is confirmed in the next sentence.

 

[lagoo]

It's not redundant to me- it makes it clear that maintaining quality is the topic and not that the topic is doing well.

Is it safe to replace "that of maintaining quality" with "to maintain quality" without ambiguity?

 

[GoesStation]

Is it safe to replace "that of maintaining quality" with "to maintain quality" without ambiguity?

No. "To maintain quality" is not a topic.

 

[Andy Lin]

It's not redundant to me- it makes it clear that maintaining quality is the topic and not that the topic is doing well.

I don't understand "topic is doing well".

Even without "that of", the sentence only has one message: maintaining quality is the topic.

 

[Andy Lin]

It shouldn't be misunderstood without "that of". And the correct reading is confirmed in the next sentence.

What should not be misunderstood?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't understand "topic is doing well".

Even without "that of", the sentence only has one message: maintaining quality is the topic.

Tdol means that without that of, it could be interpreted to mean that the topic is maintaining quality, which is not the intended meaning. In other words, that we take 'maintaining quality' to be what the topic is doing, not what it is.

Raymott is correctly pointing out in post #3 that it is unlikely that anybody would make such a misinterpretation.

However, my answer to your question is: no. The use of that of is quite important to make the sentence clear and easy to read, and so is not redundant.

Without the inclusion of that of, I feel that maintaining quality would need to be set off in some way, (e.g. by inverted commas) to make the meaning more clear.

 

[Raymott]

What should not be misunderstood?

The sentence should not be misunderstood even if you leave out "that of".

The text reads "[FONT=&quot]One of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community is that of maintaining quality. It is trivially obvious that we need to maintain and even improve quality."
[/FONT]This second sentence confirms that maintaining quality is "one of the topics".

 

[Tdol]

That makes sense, but trivially obvious is weird IMO.

 

[Andy Lin]

Hi, jutfrank.

I'm very appreciated for your response. But I still did not get it.

The intended meaning of this sentence is not "the topic is maintaining quality", so what is the intended meaning of this sentence?

 

[GoesStation]

[STRIKE]I'm very appreciated for[/STRIKE] I appreciate your response, but I still [STRIKE]did not[/STRIKE] don't get it.

The intended meaning of this sentence is not "the topic is maintaining quality", so what is the intended meaning of this sentence?

One of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community is that of maintaining quality.

You could rephrase that as follows: Maintaining quality is one of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community.

Is that clearer?

 

[jutfrank]

Imagine I walk into the classroom as a teacher and write on the board one of the following:

Today's topic is: 'Rubbish'.
Today's topic is rubbish.

Do you see the difference? They may have very similar pronunciations, but there is a huge difference in meaning.

 

[Andy Lin]

To GoesStation:
Can I ask you what's difference in expression between "I'm very appreciated for" and "I appreciate"?

 

[Andy Lin]

To jutfrank:
Thank you!! I get it!

I want to ask one more question.
Is "that" in that of referring to topic? In other words, can I rewrite this sentence to "One of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community is topic of maintaining quality"

 

[jutfrank]

Is "that" in that of referring to topic? In other words, can I rewrite this sentence to "One of the topics of ongoing interest in the kernel community is topic of maintaining quality"

You missed the article the, but yes, that's right.

that = the topic

 

[GoesStation]

To GoesStation:
Can I ask you what's difference in expression between "I'm very appreciated for" and "I appreciate"?

"I'm very appreciated for" is ungrammatical. You could write "I'm very appreciative for" something. That's very formal and old-fashioned, but it isn't wrong.

 

[Phaedrus]

Tdol means that without that of, it could be interpreted to mean that the topic is maintaining quality, which is not the intended meaning. In other words, that we take 'maintaining quality' to be what the topic is doing, not what it is.

It might be worthwhile to point out the syntactic ambiguity of "The topic is maintaining quality."

On the interpretation where the topic is doing something (maintaining quality), "is" is a present-progressive auxiliary and "maintaining" a present participle.

On the intended interpretation, where the topic is (identical to) maintaining quality, "is" is a copula (linking verb) and "maintaining quality" a gerund.

"That of" removes the ambiguity by changing the syntax:

"The topic is that of maintaining quality" means "The topic is the topic of maintaining quality."

The copula there is unmistakable: "[Noun phrase] is [noun phrase]."