Question on prepositions and comparisons
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I ran into a grammar book that claims this sentence as incorrect:
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre
They are saying it needs to be "...to the Louvre".
Other sources say that second preposition is option when saying something like
Martha was praised not only for her technique but also (for) her costume.
The only way the first book is correct is if contrasting comparisons are treated differently than comparisons noting a similarity.
Would appreciate any clarifications on who's right?
conjunctions
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 49 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I ran into a grammar book that claims this sentence as incorrect:
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre
They are saying it needs to be "...to the Louvre".
Other sources say that second preposition is option when saying something like
Martha was praised not only for her technique but also (for) her costume.
The only way the first book is correct is if contrasting comparisons are treated differently than comparisons noting a similarity.
Would appreciate any clarifications on who's right?
conjunctions
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 49 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I ran into a grammar book that claims this sentence as incorrect:
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre
They are saying it needs to be "...to the Louvre".
Other sources say that second preposition is option when saying something like
Martha was praised not only for her technique but also (for) her costume.
The only way the first book is correct is if contrasting comparisons are treated differently than comparisons noting a similarity.
Would appreciate any clarifications on who's right?
conjunctions
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
I ran into a grammar book that claims this sentence as incorrect:
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre
They are saying it needs to be "...to the Louvre".
Other sources say that second preposition is option when saying something like
Martha was praised not only for her technique but also (for) her costume.
The only way the first book is correct is if contrasting comparisons are treated differently than comparisons noting a similarity.
Would appreciate any clarifications on who's right?
conjunctions
conjunctions
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
edited Sep 25 at 19:38
Barmar
9,4671429
9,4671429
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
asked Sep 24 at 13:45
Jimmy Bernstein
1
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 49 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 49 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39
add a comment |
1
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39
1
1
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Based only on the grammar, the sentence is ambiguous. Without a preposition, it can be interpreted as
More tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre travels to Disney World.
(There's a word or phrase for this type of ambiguity, but I can't remember it -- can someone help me with a comment?).
However, grammar isn't everything. This interpretation makes no sense, since the Louvre can't travel, and even if it could, it's just a single object so no one would compare its number to a large group of people.
Conversely, it's well known that both Disney World and the Louvre are tourist destinations. So the parallel is recognized intuitively, and repeating the preposition "to" is not really necessary, it can be elided and will be understood.
In order to remove all elision, you'd have to repeat "travel" as well, e.g.
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than travel to the Louvre.
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Based only on the grammar, the sentence is ambiguous. Without a preposition, it can be interpreted as
More tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre travels to Disney World.
(There's a word or phrase for this type of ambiguity, but I can't remember it -- can someone help me with a comment?).
However, grammar isn't everything. This interpretation makes no sense, since the Louvre can't travel, and even if it could, it's just a single object so no one would compare its number to a large group of people.
Conversely, it's well known that both Disney World and the Louvre are tourist destinations. So the parallel is recognized intuitively, and repeating the preposition "to" is not really necessary, it can be elided and will be understood.
In order to remove all elision, you'd have to repeat "travel" as well, e.g.
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than travel to the Louvre.
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Based only on the grammar, the sentence is ambiguous. Without a preposition, it can be interpreted as
More tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre travels to Disney World.
(There's a word or phrase for this type of ambiguity, but I can't remember it -- can someone help me with a comment?).
However, grammar isn't everything. This interpretation makes no sense, since the Louvre can't travel, and even if it could, it's just a single object so no one would compare its number to a large group of people.
Conversely, it's well known that both Disney World and the Louvre are tourist destinations. So the parallel is recognized intuitively, and repeating the preposition "to" is not really necessary, it can be elided and will be understood.
In order to remove all elision, you'd have to repeat "travel" as well, e.g.
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than travel to the Louvre.
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Based only on the grammar, the sentence is ambiguous. Without a preposition, it can be interpreted as
More tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre travels to Disney World.
(There's a word or phrase for this type of ambiguity, but I can't remember it -- can someone help me with a comment?).
However, grammar isn't everything. This interpretation makes no sense, since the Louvre can't travel, and even if it could, it's just a single object so no one would compare its number to a large group of people.
Conversely, it's well known that both Disney World and the Louvre are tourist destinations. So the parallel is recognized intuitively, and repeating the preposition "to" is not really necessary, it can be elided and will be understood.
In order to remove all elision, you'd have to repeat "travel" as well, e.g.
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than travel to the Louvre.
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
Based only on the grammar, the sentence is ambiguous. Without a preposition, it can be interpreted as
More tourists travel to Disney World than the Louvre travels to Disney World.
(There's a word or phrase for this type of ambiguity, but I can't remember it -- can someone help me with a comment?).
However, grammar isn't everything. This interpretation makes no sense, since the Louvre can't travel, and even if it could, it's just a single object so no one would compare its number to a large group of people.
Conversely, it's well known that both Disney World and the Louvre are tourist destinations. So the parallel is recognized intuitively, and repeating the preposition "to" is not really necessary, it can be elided and will be understood.
In order to remove all elision, you'd have to repeat "travel" as well, e.g.
Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than travel to the Louvre.
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
answered Sep 25 at 19:48
Barmar
9,4671429
9,4671429
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465521%2fquestion-on-prepositions-and-comparisons%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
'Than' is a preposition (of comparison), not a coordinating conjunction, so it doesn't entitle any elisions.
– AmI
Sep 24 at 14:25
@AmI, I think the elision here is not of the preposition to, and than is a conjunction. If it's a preposition and it doesn't entitle the elision of to, two prepositions (than and to) will be there before the Luvre! Than is a coordinating conjunction, and the elision happened is on the clause following it. The full sentence should have been: "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than (they travel) to the Louvre". Here, if the second *to is elided, the sentence will become unidiomatic.
– mahmud koya
Sep 24 at 17:39
No, Mahmud, "than" is a preposition (there are only four coordinators in English: "and", "or", "but" and "nor"). In the OP's example, the comparative clause has been optionally reduced. But in this case the reduction is extreme by virtue of being verbless -- reduced to a single element, "The Louvre". It can be expanded to "Every year, more tourists travel to Disney World than tourists travel to the Louvre", but "tourists" cannot be overt, of course and must be obligatorily omitted. The omission of the verb+prep "travel to" is optional.
– BillJ
Sep 24 at 18:28
I think @mahmud koya is saying that 'than' is a subordinating conjunction with some coordinating (eliding) abilities. I see his point, but then eliding 'to' causes 'the Louvre' to assume the role of subject, which is not what is meant. BillJ may be of the school that lumps subordinating conjunctions with prepositions. Is that right?
– AmI
Sep 24 at 22:27
@BillJ Thanks for correcting me. I thought than here is a conjunction. When I said coordinating conjunction, it was an oversight from my part. Then, as the OP's Grammar book says, is it possible "... than to..." ? (two prepositions together).
– mahmud koya
Sep 25 at 7:39