The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus valley

[Guest79]

The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus Valley in the fifth century B.C., bringing the Aramaic script with it, from which was derived both northern and southern Indian alphabets.

(A) Same
(B) the Aramaic script with it, and from which deriving both the northern and the
(C) with it the Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and the
(D) with it the Aramaic script, from which derives both northern and
(E) with it the Aramaic Script, and deriving from it both the northern and

Please explain your answer

[givemeanid]

A implies the derivation was done from 'it' which stands for the empire.
B introduces 'and' that creates a lack of connection. Also, 'deriving' is incorrect tense.
D has 'derives' which is a singular verb but the subject is plural 'northern AND southern alphabets'
E has incorrect verb tense in 'deriving' and also has an extra 'and' which creates lack of connection.

C is correct.

[RonPurewal]

Choice E: 'Deriving' doesn't create a tense problem; it's parallel to 'bringing.' The problem that it DOES create, though, is a complete shift in meaning: choice E says that _the Achaemenid empire itself_ actually derived both of the alphabets in question. This is, of course, at odds with the actual meaning of the sentence, which indicates only that the alphabets _were derived_ (anonymously) at some later time. The other issue with choice E is the double 'it.'

The other criticisms are generally on target.

An added difficulty in this problem is the somewhat unconventional use of 'derive' as an intransitive verb: usually agent X derives item Y (transitive verb), but, here, item Y _derives from_ item Z. We don't see that much.

[ya]

Aramic script, which derive north and south languages

or

Aramic script, which derives north and south languages -- I think this is correct, as derive is related to the aramic script

[StaceyKoprince]

which derives - script is singular.

[Guest]

Sorry still having trouble between derive and derives.

[StaceyKoprince]

oh - should have spelled this out more carefully. Ya's question didn't mirror the text in the original question. JUST going by what ya typed:

"Aramaic script, which derives north and south languages" would be correct - because we are saying that the script derives the languages (which doesn't logically make a ton of sense, but that's another issue).

In the actual question, though, there is a "from" in there:

"Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and southern languages"

Here, the structure indicates that the languages derive the script- we've got an inverted construction. Normal construction would be: "The northern and southern languages derive from the script."

So in the original question, yes, we use derive. No "s."

[H]

Hi Stacey,

I am confused with the meaning of "derive".

1. The northern and southern languages derive from the script.
2. The northern and southern languages are derived from the script.

Do both sentences mean the same thing?
Do both sentences mean "The northern and southern languages are developed from the script"? It sounds strange to me that the languages are developed from the script. Most likely, I misunderstand the meaning of "derive".

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

1. The northern and southern languages derive from the script.
2. The northern and southern languages are derived from the script.

both are valid, but their meanings differ.
#1 means only that the origins of the two languages lie in the script. the implication is most likely that the languages evolved from the script - most likely without conscious planning.
#2 (which would probably appear in the past tense - "were derived"), on the other hand, implies that the languages were derived purposefully from the script, with conscious planning.

[vikram4689]

1. The northern and southern languages derive from the script.
2. The northern and southern languages are derived from the script.

both are valid, but their meanings differ.
#1 means only that the origins of the two languages lie in the script. the implication is most likely that the languages evolved from the script - most likely without conscious planning.
#2 (which would probably appear in the past tense - "were derived"), on the other hand, implies that the languages were derived purposefully from the script, with conscious planning.

ron,
shouldn't "are derived" - passive construction in present tense - be used. i consider this construction similar to "elephant is descended" construction in sc-is-descended-or-has-descended-t7211.html. Using past tense in any of the two examples above would imply that whatever is described is no longer the case but that isn't true
am i missing something ?

[RonPurewal]

shouldn't "are derived" - passive construction in present tense - be used. i consider this construction similar to "elephant is descended" construction in sc-is-descended-or-has-descended-t7211.html. Using past tense in any of the two examples above would imply that whatever is described is no longer the case but that isn't true
am i missing something ?

that's also a valid point, yes. nicely done.

[vikram4689]

thanks, one point that i forgot to mention is that i had a hard time when i first did this question. the reason is that 'derive' is used as intransitive verb (came to know from your post).
how can i be more cognizant of these points because even now when i read "The northern and southern languages derive from the script" it feels iffy to me because my mind thinks languages are doing the action of deriving. However, "The northern and southern languages are derived from the script" is more clear to me

[RonPurewal]

thanks, one point that i forgot to mention is that i had a hard time when i first did this question. the reason is that 'derive' is used as intransitive verb (came to know from your post).
how can i be more cognizant of these points because even now when i read "The northern and southern languages derive from the script" it feels iffy to me because my mind thinks languages are doing the action of deriving. However, "The northern and southern languages are derived from the script" is more clear to me

the two senses ("to derive" and "to be derived") are relatively close, but there's a difference:
* X derives from Y just means that X somehow comes from Y (in whatever way -- intentionally or organically).
* X is derived from Y specifically implies that the derivation is effected by human beings.

e.g.
x% of the energy in France derives from nuclear power --> correct (this is the source of the energy)
x% of the energy in France is derived from nuclear power --> also correct (because this is done by human beings)

human emotions derive from our evolutionary history --> makes sense
human emotions are derived from our evolutionary history --> wrong; this is nonsense (people don't actually derive these emotions; the sentence is just supposed to say that's where the emotions come from.)

in this sentence, it doesn't seem reasonable that people sat down one day and derived some alphabets from a script. instead, if you think about the way that kind of stuff works, you'll realize that the evolution of an alphabet is a much longer-term process, not purposely effected by any one person or group of people. (legend has it that there are exceptions, such as the korean hangul characters, but that's another story.)
therefore "derives" makes more sense than "are derived" here.

needless to say, you will not encounter a gmat SC problem that actually depends on this sort of thing.

[vikram4689]

* X derives from Y just means that X somehow comes from Y (in whatever way -- intentionally or organically).

if i am not wrong, in above point,
a) whenever meaning of derive=intentional then usage is TRANSITIVE i.e. verb "derives" takes direct object and subject performs the action of deriving
b) whenever meaning of derive=un-intentional then usage is IN-TRANSITIVE i.e. verb "derive" does NOT take direct object (as in this case)

* X is derived from Y specifically implies that the derivation is effected by human beings.

in above point i.e. in passive voice, "derive" is *always* used as transitive

am in correct for all cases above ?

[tim]

i don't think you would ever use "derive" as a transitive verb unless you are describing a specific thing that a person derived through a deductive process. this is a VERY narrow usage and highly unlikely to show up on the GMAT..