Discussion:
Murdoch: which
(too old to reply)
Marius Hancu
2017-04-17 14:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello,

~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]

We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.

Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~

Isn't there a "for" missing there?

Thanks.
--
Marius Hancu
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-17 14:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."

He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.

This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
David Kleinecke
2017-04-17 17:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-17 23:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-6, David Kleinecke wrote:
...
Post by David Kleinecke
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
The true heir to Henry James?

But she can't compete with something like this:

"Do Loveth Thou The Lord?"

If loveth thou The Lord as ye say
But striveth not His commandmants to keep
And if loveth thou The Lord as ye say
But loveth not thy neighbor
Then sayeth do I to thee, my friend
Where is the truth of your say?

https://books.google.com/books?id=2sZZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97

I can't remember what I searched for, because of something here,
that turned up pseudo-medieval fantasy novels with the same kind
of syntax.
--
Jerry Friedman
David Kleinecke
2017-04-17 23:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by David Kleinecke
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
The true heir to Henry James?
"Do Loveth Thou The Lord?"
If loveth thou The Lord as ye say
But striveth not His commandmants to keep
And if loveth thou The Lord as ye say
But loveth not thy neighbor
Then sayeth do I to thee, my friend
Where is the truth of your say?
https://books.google.com/books?id=2sZZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97
I can't remember what I searched for, because of something here,
that turned up pseudo-medieval fantasy novels with the same kind
of syntax.
That's dreadful. I surrender.

But is bad fake Middle English really modern bad writing?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-18 03:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by David Kleinecke
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
The true heir to Henry James?
I read *The American* over several weeks last year -- not bad, though toward
the end it takes an unfortunate turn toward the melodramatic. One of these
days I'll try *The Europeans*, the next one in the Library of America volume
of his first five novels.

His brother William James, OTOH, was quite modern in style.
Lebowski
2017-04-19 04:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?

*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)

Does the non-silent "which" really improve things:

(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.

I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
different function:

"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-19 13:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lebowski
Post by David Kleinecke
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Marius Hancu
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?
*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)
(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.
I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Please study the commments of the previous responders. You've made the same mistake as Marius.
g***@gmail.com
2017-04-19 15:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lebowski
Post by David Kleinecke
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Marius Hancu
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?
*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)
(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.
I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Please study the commments of the previous responders. You've made the same mistake as Marius.
No, I didn't make the same mistake as Marius. Like all of you, I interpreted "which" as referring to "view" and as functioning
as the direct object of "enjoy." However, I did make a mistake
in my "WTF?" rendition. Marius's specimen uses Pied Piping, and
a relative pronoun can never be deleted in that context. The
"zero" relative construction is as follows:

"We turned toward the view he had the window built to enjoy."

I still think it may not be grammatical, but perhaps it's marginally so.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-19 16:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lebowski
Post by David Kleinecke
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Marius Hancu
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?
*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)
(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.
I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Please study the commments of the previous responders. You've made the same mistake as Marius.
No, I didn't make the same mistake as Marius. Like all of you, I interpreted "which" as referring to "view" and as functioning
as the direct object of "enjoy." However, I did make a mistake
in my "WTF?" rendition. Marius's specimen uses Pied Piping, and
a relative pronoun can never be deleted in that context. The
"We turned toward the view he had the window built to enjoy."
I still think it may not be grammatical, but perhaps it's marginally so.
I didn't answer you, I answered Lebowski.
g***@gmail.com
2017-04-19 16:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lebowski
Post by David Kleinecke
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Marius Hancu
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?
*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)
(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.
I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Please study the commments of the previous responders. You've made the same mistake as Marius.
No, I didn't make the same mistake as Marius. Like all of you, I interpreted "which" as referring to "view" and as functioning
as the direct object of "enjoy." However, I did make a mistake
in my "WTF?" rendition. Marius's specimen uses Pied Piping, and
a relative pronoun can never be deleted in that context. The
"We turned toward the view he had the window built to enjoy."
I still think it may not be grammatical, but perhaps it's marginally so.
I didn't answer you, I answered Lebowski.
Sorry, Pete. I am at one with the Dude, who is likewise at one with me.
We are both at one with someone else, who chooses to be anonymous, lest
members like Marius recognize him from elsewhere.
g***@gmail.com
2017-04-19 16:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lebowski
Post by David Kleinecke
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Marius Hancu
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
I am inclined to view IM as the epitome of modern bad writing.
But I do wish Eric Walker were still here to see what he would
say.
Is it even grammatical? Because "which" functions as object
within the relativized purpose-clause adjunct (!!!), we should
in theory be able to have the so-called "zero" construction.
But is that even parseable?
*"We turned toward the view to enjoy he had the window built." (WTF?)
(?) We turned toward the view to enjoy which he had the window built.
I guess it does a little, but I think Marius is on the right track
in desiring "for." I'd just add it in a different position, with a
"We looked at the view for the enjoyment of which he had the window built."
Please study the commments of the previous responders. You've made the same mistake as Marius.
No, I didn't make the same mistake as Marius. Like all of you, I interpreted "which" as referring to "view" and as functioning
as the direct object of "enjoy." However, I did make a mistake
in my "WTF?" rendition. Marius's specimen uses Pied Piping, and
a relative pronoun can never be deleted in that context. The
"We turned toward the view he had the window built to enjoy."
I still think it may not be grammatical, but perhaps it's marginally so.
I didn't answer you, I answered Lebowski.
Sorry, Pete. I am at one with the Dude, who is likewise at one with me.
We are both at one with someone else, who chooses to be anonymous, lest
members like Marius recognize him from elsewhere.
My omission of the "r" in "Peter" was an accident.

Marius Hancu
2017-04-17 22:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, the phrase is "to enjoy which."
He had a bay window built so that he could enjoy the view.
This woman makes the reader work far too hard for her prose to be enjoyable -- or is
this a late work, in which her dementia was already becoming evident? It's been
shown that Agatha Christie actually exploited her dementia in her last few novels,
taking advantage of the diminishing active vocabulary and writing her condition into
some of the characters.
No, it's an early work, dated 1961. She published until 1997.

Thanks a lot though, everyone.
--
Marius Hancu
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-17 14:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marius Hancu
Hello,
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, I wouldn't be able to understand it with a "for". "Which" means the
'view'. To enjoy the 'view', Alexander had had a big bay window built.

Do the scare quotes suggest that Murdoch or Martin disapproves of this
sense of "view", or that either thinks it wasn't a view worth mentioning?
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2017-04-17 18:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
~~~ [Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the
silent movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy
[for??] which Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window
built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head ~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, I wouldn't be able to understand it with a "for". "Which" means
the 'view'. To enjoy the 'view', Alexander had had a big bay window
built.
Do the scare quotes suggest that Murdoch or Martin disapproves of
this sense of "view", or that either thinks it wasn't a view worth
mentioning?
Someone could have put a Mcmansion in the way. I thought the
other possibility might be that they are described as turning towards a
"view" that wasn't visible at the time.

Deeper meanings?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-18 00:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:28:04 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Marius Hancu
Hello,
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
No, I wouldn't be able to understand it with a "for". "Which" means the
'view'. To enjoy the 'view', Alexander had had a big bay window built.
Do the scare quotes suggest that Murdoch or Martin disapproves of this
sense of "view", or that either thinks it wasn't a view worth mentioning?
I think the scare quotes are because the view is "now invisible" and is
therefore not really a view.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
CDB
2017-04-17 14:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
~~~ [Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??]
which Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head ~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
Don't think so. "Which" is the view to be enjoyed. If you made the
relative clause into a sentence, it would be "... and the now-invisible
"view". Alexander had had the big bay window built a few years ago [in
order] to enjoy it."
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-17 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
~~~ [Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??]
which Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head ~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
Don't think so. "Which" is the view to be enjoyed. If you made the
relative clause into a sentence, it would be "... and the now-invisible
"view". Alexander had had the big bay window built a few years ago [in
order] to enjoy it."
My first reaction was that "for" is missing. After more study,
I realized that "to enjoy" seemed unintelligible in my parsing --
"...for" fits if you drop "to enjoy".

I think I would have read it right if there were a comma after "view",
the now invisible 'view', to enjoy which Alexander had had the
big bay window built a few years ago."

(I also read it more easily when I un-split the "had had".)
--
Rich Ulrich
Mark Brader
2017-04-17 20:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
You've misparsed. It's not

"...the view to enjoy (for which a bay window had been built)"

It's actually

"...the view (to enjoy which, a bay window had been buiilt)"

So no, no "for" is missing.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We don't use clubs; they weren't invented here.
***@vex.net | We use rocks." -- David Keldsen

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Marius Hancu
2017-04-17 22:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Marius Hancu
~~~
[Alexander is Martin Lynch-Gibbon's brother.]
We had not yet put the lights on, and we sat together in the
window-seat, not looking at each other but turned toward the silent
movement of the snow and the now invisible 'view' to enjoy [for??] which
Alexander had a few years ago had the big bay window built.
Iris Murdoch, A Severed Head
~~~
Isn't there a "for" missing there?
You've misparsed. It's not
"...the view to enjoy (for which a bay window had been built)"
It's actually
"...the view (to enjoy which, a bay window had been buiilt)"
So no, no "for" is missing.
Indeed.
Thanks, everyone.
--
Marius Hancu
Loading...