it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing

[YAMATO2201]

At the age of fifty, and with a dozen or so books published, it does not seem tautologous to say that I write because I am a writer. To stop writing, not to write, is now unthinkable — or perhaps it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing.

(Source: an entrance examination to a Japanese university)

I analyze the underlined part as follows:

1) The referent of "it" is "To stop writing, not to write".

2) "to assuage which one goes on writing" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "the secret fear".

3) The antecedent of "which" is "the secret fear".

4) "to assuage which" means "in order to assuage which".

Is my analysis correct?

 

[J&K Tutoring]

Your understanding is about the best I can make of this mess also. My biggest issue is the use of the definite article 'the'. I think it would be better as: '...some secret fear...' Another help would be a comma after fear.

Maybe it's okay, but I've never seen tautologous before. Tautological is the adjective form my dictionary and I are more familiar with.

 

[kadioguy]

I analyze the underlined part as follows:

I am not sure whether "analyze" can be used statively.

At the age of fifty, and with a dozen or so books published, it does not seem tautologous to say that I write because I am a writer. To stop writing, not to write, is now unthinkable — or perhaps it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing.

(Source: an entrance examination to a Japanese university)

2) "to assuage which one goes on writing" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "the secret fear".

I would say "to assuage which one goes on writing" is a infinitive phrase because of the "to".

 

[kadioguy]

What has that got to do with this thread?

If "analyze" cannot be used statively, then we cannot say "I analyze the underlined part as follows". Please think of this: "examine" cannot be used statively, so we cannot say "I examine her passport".

 

[Phaedrus]

To stop writing, not to write, is now unthinkable — or perhaps it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing.

My intuition tells me that the author was trying to say:

"Or perhaps it is the secret fear of not writing any more which one goes on writing to assuage."

That's a cleft sentence deriving from: "Or perhaps one goes on writing to assuage the secret fear of not writing any more."

 

[jutfrank]

The phrase doesn't make sense to me.

It seems the writer is using goes on (continues) as a phrasal verb and the secret fear as the antecedent of which. How can you 'go on a fear'?


Edit: Okay, now I've got it:

the secret fear, which one goes on writing [in order] to assuage

 

[YAMATO2201]

I am not sure whether "analyze" can be used statively.

I analyze it as follows.

https://www.google.com/search?q="I+...69i60j69i61.2846j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.......0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.NHih5szQNEE

I analyse it as follows.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.......0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.dTdJc1RPlpE

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=b......0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7DkU8jTG9CY

 

[kadioguy]

I don't know where you got that idea from.
Most verbs used statively are not normally used in the progressive aspect. Verbs not used statively can be used in simple and progressive aspects.

Yes, you are right. I should have said:

If a verb cannot be used statively, when it is used in simple aspect, it means the action happens repeatedly. For example, "I read the underlined part as follows" means this action happens repeatedly - it is more like a habit.

This is why I said that in post #3. I didn't think YAMATO2201 "analyze" the underlined part repeatedly. But now I know "analyze" can be used statively, so the use in post #1 is appropriate.

 

[Phaedrus]

To stop writing, not to write, is now unthinkable — or perhaps it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing.

Is it grammatical to use Pied Piping with an infinitive clause of purpose? That is the deeper issue that I think this thread raises.

One can say "This is the book which I came here to read," but can one say: ? "This is the book to read which I came here."

One can say "This is the matter which I came here to talk about" and "This the matter about which I came here to talk," but can one say:

? "This is the matter to talk about which I came here." For me, the answer to each question is a tentative "No."

 

[jutfrank]

Is it grammatical to use Pied Piping with an infinitive clause of purpose? That is the deeper issue that I think this thread raises.

One can say "This is the book which I came here to read," but can one say: ? "This is the book to read which I came here."

One can say "This is the matter which I came here to talk about" and "This the matter about which I came here to talk," but can one say:

? "This is the matter to talk about which I came here." For me, the answer to each question is a tentative "No."

Agreed. I must say I feel the sentence in the OP to be ungrammatical. In fact, it didn't make sense to me at all without making an effort for a good minute (and then noticing your helpful post #7).

I think this particular writer was trying too hard.

 

[YAMATO2201]

or perhaps it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing.

2) "to assuage which one goes on writing" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "the secret fear".

I would say "to assuage which one goes on writing" is an infinitive phrase because of the "to".

My original analysis was:

it is the secret fear to assuage which one goes on writing
||
it is the secret fear + to assuage which one goes on writing
||
it is the secret fear + one goes on writing to assuage which
||
it is the secret fear + which one goes on writing to assuage
||
it is the secret fear which one goes on writing to assuage​

Hence,

to assuage which one goes on writing = which one goes on writing to assuage.​

On grounds of this equation, I wrote "restrictive relative clause".