Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism

[Guest]

A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment, Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what Marx’s Das Kapital is to socialism.


A. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what
B. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism like
C. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism just as
D. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism similar to
E. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism what


OA : E

Please explain modifier "A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment" and the usage of what "what" .

[kylo]

A B C r out bcoz of modifier problem.
D is awkward bcoz of "similar to".

hence IMO E.


Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

A B C r out bcoz of

please take the extra half-second required to write out "are" and "because".
thank you.

--

Please explain modifier "A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment"

this is a normal appositive modifier. if it frightens you, that's because it would sound ridiculous if you tried to say it out loud.

just memorize that you can place appositive modifiers, such as this one, in front of the subject of a sentence, and separate them with a comma. the noun modified by the appositive MUST be the subject of the following clause, and MUST follow the comma IMMEDIATELY.)

here's another one:
[i]the winner of the last three poker tournaments, jared has issued a public challenge to all the players in the upcoming tournament.
jared is the winner of the last three poker tournaments.

--

the usage of what "what"

the double "what" takes me back to my college days.

this is actually not a special case of the word "what". it's a case of a phenomenon for which i don't have a name, but which i'll describe below.

when you have a construction involving a prepositional phrase as well as a direct object, you'll often see the following alternation:
* SUBJ + VERB + OBJ + PP, if the OBJ is short
* SUBJ + VERB + PP + OBJ, if the OBJ is long
examples:
ethan dedicated a song to his late father. --> the OBJ is "a song", which is short. it's placed before the PP "to his late father".
ethan dedicated to his late father a song that he had written in the hours following the funeral ceremony. --> the OBJ is "a song ... ceremony", which is really long, so it's placed after the PP.

same deal here: "what marx's das kapital is to socialism" is too long to place between "that are" and "to democratic capitalism", so you throw it in the back.

[cheese]

:?

I agree with you that "A leading figure" must parallel to " A people" rather than " his two major book". But I found the original sentence in The New York Times:

A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment, his two major books, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" are to democratic capitalism what Marx's "Das Kapital" was to socialism.

Here attached the linkage: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A962958260

I am so confused...Please help, thanks.

[RonPurewal]

:?

I agree with you that "A leading figure" must parallel to " A people" rather than " his two major book". But I found the original sentence in The New York Times:

A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment, his two major books, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" are to democratic capitalism what Marx's "Das Kapital" was to socialism.

Here attached the linkage: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A962958260

I am so confused...Please help, thanks.

that's incorrect grammar.

i've seen several grammatical errors in papers of that caliber. they do publish daily, after all, so editing sometimes isn't perfect.
this is one of the best arguments for sticking to official problems! (although if you're a second-language english learner and you're trying to get practice, then ... yes.)

the only periodical in which i've never seen an error like this is The New Criterion, a cultural review with a refreshingly conservative slant.

[goelmohit2002]

Probably D is wrong because it does not follow the idiom:

X is to Y what P is to Q.

Which is correctly followed in E...

Can someone please confirm is there any other reason to prefer E over D ?

[RonPurewal]

Probably D is wrong because it does not follow the idiom:

X is to Y what P is to Q.

Which is correctly followed in E...

Can someone please confirm is there any other reason to prefer E over D ?

you got it. it's just a bad idiomatic construction.

[goelmohit2002]

Probably D is wrong because it does not follow the idiom:

X is to Y what P is to Q.

Which is correctly followed in E...

Can someone please confirm is there any other reason to prefer E over D ?

you got it. it's just a bad idiomatic construction.

Thanks Ron !!!

[RonPurewal]

mmhmm

[viniet.eldho]

Could you please explain why A is wrong?

[parthatayi]

Could you please explain why A is wrong?

Its wrong because "A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment" is incorrectly modifying "Adam Smith’s two major books". Ideally it should modify Adam Smith.

[RonPurewal]

Could you please explain why A is wrong?

Its wrong because "A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment" is incorrectly modifying "Adam Smith’s two major books". Ideally it should modify Adam Smith.

perfect.

[aanchalsinha]

Hi,

I have a query regarding the idiomatic expression - X is to Y what P is to Q.

I understand that Adam Smith should follow the modifier - A leading figure, however, what I do not understand is if X in the idiom needs to be parallel with P. i.e. Does Adam Smith need to be parallel with Marx?

Thanks,
Aanchal

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

I have a query regarding the idiomatic expression - X is to Y what P is to Q.

I understand that Adam Smith should follow the modifier - A leading figure, however, what I do not understand is if X in the idiom needs to be parallel with P. i.e. Does Adam Smith need to be parallel with Marx?

Thanks,
Aanchal

it just has to be an analogy that works.
e.g., "an empanada is to Uruguay what a samosa is to India"

in any reasonable analogy, this will undoubtedly create at least some degree of parallelism between these concepts -- but your job here is just to make sure that the analogy works.

--

by the way, take a look at (d) when it is inserted back into the sentence -- if you do so, you get something like a triple run-on sentence

[Jason.tuyj]

I have a question I need to ask, why "Marx's Das Kapital is to socialism" is to the book, not to the person.????

Pls answer me quickly, thank you!!!