Marconi’s conception of the radio

[apoorva_srivastva]

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
A. Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is
B. Marconi conceived of the radio as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which is
C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become
D. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which has become
E. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, other than what it is

I am torn between c and e

[mangipudi]

E. has the following problems.

- 'conceived of x to be a substitute of y' is awkward. I will prefer 'conceived of x as a substitute of y' .

- appears run-on without a proper conjunction.

- 'other than what it is' doesnt express the intended contrast.

[apoorva_srivastva]

OA is C..thanks for the clarifications mate

[RonPurewal]

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
A. Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is
B. Marconi conceived of the radio as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which is
C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become
D. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which has become
E. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, other than what it is

I am torn between c and e

yeah.

as the user above has said, "conceive of X as Y" is the proper idiom. you just can't say "conceive of X to be Y", because that's unidiomatic. (you just have to memorize this; there's really no other way around it)

is there some punctuation at the end of choice (e)?
if it's really written that way - with no connecting punctuation at all, just a blizzard of words - then it's so wrong that i don't even know where to start analyzing it. are you sure there's not something like a colon at the end of that choice?

[priyankamittal]

Hi Ron,

I had issues with "substitute for the telephone" in the correct answer. Should it not be simply "substitute the telephone". Is the preposition really necessary? Does it not make it read weird?

Please explain

Thanks

[running2k]

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
A. Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is
B. Marconi conceived of the radio as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which is
C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become
D. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which has become
E. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, other than what it is

I am torn between c and e

Hi Ron,

I have a question again about "which".

Per OG explainations, in both B and D "which" modifies telephone, which really confuses me.

In B, ...as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which..., i think "which" should modify "tool" or "conversation", am I right?

In D, ...be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which... i think "which" should modify "sbustitute" or "telephone", am I right?

THis contradicts the OG explanations. Could you please confirm the word "which" modifies?

Also, generally speaking, for the structure as "N1 for A1, N2 for B2, which", "which" should modify N2 or B2 or something else.

Could you please elaborate how nonrestrictive clause "which" modify the word in the main clause? I'm really confused, and always take for granted that "which" should modify the noun precedes it. Really appreciate it!!!

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

In B, ...as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which..., i think "which" should modify "tool" or "conversation", am I right?

no.

that choice says "BUT which..."
this means that "which..." is the second part of a parallel structure. the first part of this parallel structure is "a tool for private conversation".
BOTH parts of this parallel structure modify "telephone". (this is how parallel structures work: both/all parts of them MUST have the same grammatical function.)

In D, ...be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which... i think "which" should modify "sbustitute" or "telephone", am I right?

no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS BASED ONLY ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OFFICIAL PROBLEMS.

from what we've seen - if you have "which" following "noun1 + preposition + noun2", then "which" can refer to noun1 only if noun2 is grammatically ineligible. otherwise it automatically refers to noun2.
see here:
post31162.html#p31162

[purduesr]

In B, ...as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which..., i think "which" should modify "tool" or "conversation", am I right?

no.

In D, ...be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which... i think "which" should modify "sbustitute" or "telephone", am I right?

no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS BASED ONLY ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OFFICIAL PROBLEMS.

from what we've seen - if you have "which" following "noun1 + preposition + noun2", then "which" can refer to noun1 only if noun2 is grammatically ineligible. otherwise it automatically refers to noun2.
see here:
post31162.html#p31162

Could you please explain how "BUT which is precisely the opposite..." is parallel to "a tool for private conversation" as you explained below??

that choice says "BUT which..."
this means that "which..." is the second part of a parallel structure. the first part of this parallel structure is "a tool for private conversation".
BOTH parts of this parallel structure modify "telephone". (this is how parallel structures work: both/all parts of them MUST have the same grammatical function.)

Also, could you explain why you said

no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

for Ans(d) when "which has" matches with "telephone", a singular noun??

[RonPurewal]

purduesr - some good questions. here you go:

Could you please explain how "BUT which is precisely the opposite..." is parallel to "a tool for private conversation" as you explained below??

i wasn't actually stating that those were properly parallel structures. instead, i was stating that, if "which" were to modify anything at all, it would have to modify "telephone".

you are right that this parallelism is extremely sub-optimal.

Also, could you explain why you said

no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

for Ans(d) when "which has" matches with "telephone", a singular noun??

ah, no, i guess my wording wasn't clear enough.

i was saying "no" to the previous poster's contention that "which" had two possible antecedents.
my reply was meant to indicate exactly what you are indicating - namely, that there is exactly one antecedent (i.e., "telephone").

sorry if the initial explanation was a bit murky.

[guy.b]

hi,

Can you please explain what's wrpng with (a)? is it just wordy (as written in the OG)?

thanks,

[mschwrtz]

guy.b, that's certainly part of what's wrong with A; the verb "conceived" is preferred to the noun "conception."

Another issue is that the phrase "a tool for private conversation" seems in A to be an appositive modifying "telephone," or if we really strain to be generous modifying "a substitute for the telephone." Presumably it is meant to modify "radio."

(An appositive is a noun used as a noun modifier.)

[iamjc01]

hi Ron,

Sorry, I just don't get why C could be right considering

1) the choice changed the original sentence's meaning. The choice talks about what Marconi did, however the original talked about the conception itself.
2) for private conversation that could substitute for telephone. Apparently, "that could substitute for telephone" is an attribute clause that modify conversation since almost all attribute clauses always modify the closest noun. For instance, Bears eat berries that are sweet. (berries are sweet not bears). The questions is trying to say the tool substitute for telephone not private conversation.

Am I right?

J

[tim]

No you are not:

1) every single word you change, in any sentence ever, changes the meaning. please don't fall into the trap of assuming you have to adhere to the meaning of the original. not only is grammar far more important than meaning, but if the original sentence is wrong then you HAVE to change the meaning, even if only slightly..

2) you can string two modifiers along after a noun without a problem. the problem arises when something other than another modifier comes between a modifier and its noun. this is what your example does, but please note that the following sentence is fine:

Bears eat berries from Bavaria that are sweet.

[siddharth.sood86]

Pronoun Reference Doubt

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.


Maybe I am over analysing, but the pronoun it made me think twice - can it refer to the telephone as well (I know that does not make sense logically) OR is it a case of ellipsis where the noun need not be repeated (I was confused here since there were two nouns radio and telephone).

Since all the options contained the same construction of it, I let go of the consideration.

Clarification please...

[RonPurewal]

Pronoun Reference Doubt

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.


Maybe I am over analysing, but the pronoun it made me think twice - can it refer to the telephone as well (I know that does not make sense logically) OR is it a case of ellipsis where the noun need not be repeated (I was confused here since there were two nouns radio and telephone).

Since all the options contained the same construction of it, I let go of the consideration.

Clarification please...

pronoun ambiguity isn't always -- or even usually -- a fatal error.

read more here:
post40400.html#p40400