questions

[Taka]

The sentence:

Americans believe that people, as individuals or working cooperatively together, can change most aspects of the physical and social environment if they decide to do so, make appropriate plans, and get to work.

Question#1: (about as individuals or working cooperatively together)

Which interpretation is correct?:

(a) as (individuals or working cooperatively together)
(b) (as individuals) or (working cooperatively together)

IMO, it's (b), but I'm not sure...


Question#2: (about make appropriate plans, and get to work.)

Which interpretation is correct?:

(a) if they decide...make...and get to work.
(b) people can change...(and people) make...and get to work.

I think it's (a), but my book says it's (b)...

 

[blacknomi]

The sentence:

Americans believe that people, as individuals or working cooperatively together, can change most aspects of the phisical and social environment if they decide to do so, make appropriate plans, and get to work.

Question#1: (about as individuals or working cooperatively together)

Which interpretation is correct?:

(a) as (individuals or working cooperatively together)
(b) (as individuals) or (working cooperatively together)

IMO, it's (b), but I'm not sure...

Add one vote.
as individuals ==> noun predicate
working cooperatively together ==> present participle phrase functioned as an adjective predicate. People who are working cooperatively together.

Question#2: (about make appropriate plans, and get to work.)
Which interpretation is correct?:
(a) if they decide...make...and get to work.
(b) people can change...(and people) make...and get to work.
I think it's (a), but my book says it's (b)...

This is my interpretation.
Americans believe that people make appropriate plans, and get to work. If they decide to do so, they can change most aspects of the physical and social environment.


I'll track this thread.

 

[Tdol]

For question one, I'd go for b), but to be honest I can't really see much difference- it seems to be splitting hairs.

For the secondquestion, I'm with the book.

;-)

 

[Taka]

For the secondquestion, I'm with the book.

Really? I thought it was about some sort of process, like you decide to change your environment (=do so), => make appropriate plans, =>and get to work. After that proper process you can change your environment.

Plus, is it possible when you have "S+ can+do1+do2+do3", the auxiliary verb works only for "do1"?

 

[Taka]

tdol?

 

[Casiopea]

Americans believe that people, as individuals or working cooperatively together, can change most aspects of the physical and social environment if they decide to do so, make appropriate plans, and get to work.

Question#1: (about as individuals or working cooperatively together)

Which interpretation is correct?:

(a) as (individuals or working cooperatively together)
(b) (as individuals) or (working cooperatively together)

(b) that people, as individuals / that people working together
(c) that people, as individuals / that people as working together

Question#2: (about make appropriate plans, and get to work.)

Which interpretation is correct?:

(a) if they decide...make...and get to work.
(b) people can change...(and people) make...and get to work.

Sorry. I don't understand your interpretations. Here's how I read it:

...that people can change X if they first decide to change, second, if they decide to make appropriate plans, and, third, if they decide to get to work.

if they decide to is redundant so it's left out.

 

[Taka]

Here's how I read it:

...that people can change X if they first decide to change, second, if they decide to make appropriate plans, and, third, if they decide to get to work.

if they decide to is redundant so it's left out.

The original text has this before the sentence I posted first:

Americans believe that mature, sensible person sets goals for the future and works systematically toward them.

According to the context, for Americans making appropriate plans and getting to work is not a matter of decision. So, I don't think your interpretation--if they decide to make appropriate plans, and if they decide to get to work.---is correct. But it's pretty close to mine. My interpretation is:

...that people can change X if they first decide to change, second, if they make appropriate plans, and, third, if they get to work.

Anyway, our interpretation seems to be quite different from that of tdol, which is:

...that people can change..., (people) make appropriate plans, and get to work.

I wait for tdol's comments.

 

[Casiopea]

...that people can change X if they first decide to change, second, if they make appropriate plans, and, third, if they get to work.

That sounds even better.

Have you tried the Applied Linguistics forum on Dave's ESL Cafe? Check it out.

 

[Taka]

Before that, tdol's comments. :wink:

 

[Tdol]

For the secondquestion, I'm with the book.

Really? I thought it was about some sort of process, like you decide to change your environment (=do so), => make appropriate plans, =>and get to work. After that proper process you can change your environment.

Plus, is it possible when you have "S+ can+do1+do2+do3", the auxiliary verb works only for "do1"?

To get an alternative reading and group them three with 'decide', I'd shove a comma in before 'if'- that way they'd link together naturally. ;-)

 

[Taka]

To get an alternative reading and group them three with 'decide', I'd shove a comma in before 'if'- that way they'd link together naturally. ;-)

As I said to Cas, my interpretation doesn't group them three with "decide", but with "if they". Still do you think we need a comma before "if" in order to group them with "if they"?

Plus, could you give me your comments on this one?:

Is it possible when you have "S+ can+do1+do2+do3", the auxiliary verb works only for "do1"?

 

[Casiopea]

Before that, tdol's comments. :wink:

No worries. I'll leave you to tdol's expertise. By the way, Taka, have you had a chance to see blacknomi's response to your post? 8)

 

[Tdol]

Is it possible when you have "S+ can+do1+do2+do3", the auxiliary verb works only for "do1"?

That would depend on the conjunctions, etc. What did you have in mind? Logically, they would all follow, so there would have to be something to break the chain. ;-)

 

[blacknomi]

Before that, tdol's comments. :wink:

No worries. I'll leave you to tdol's expertise. By the way, Taka, have you had a chance to see blacknomi's response to your post? 8)

If there is anything wrong with my post, please let me know.

 

[Taka]

If there is anything wrong with my post, please let me know.

Nothing wrong with your answer for the Question #1. In fact, my interpretation is 100% the same as yours.

As for the Question #2, I think I need further discussion with tdol.

 

[Taka]

there would have to be something to break the chain.

Then what is it that breaks the chain here?

There is no conjuntion between "people can change" and "make...and get to work". Why can it be like "people can change...(and people) make...and get to work"?

 

[Tdol]

I really must apologise- reading back, I see I misread the question.

 

[Taka]

I really must apologise- reading back, I see I misread the question.

That's alright. But then, how do you interpret the sentence?

 

[Taka]

tdol?

 

[Tdol]

OK- I'd added a 'can' to my mind's eye, without which I have to interpretation completely. ;-)