# than would have been the case



## grammar-in-use

Hello everyone,

Here's a sentence from a grammar book:

a. The score is higher than would have been the case if no one had cheated.

I'm trying to figure out how "than would have been the case" is constructed. Here's my attempt:
a1. The score is *x high*.
a2. It would have been the case that the score would have been *y high* if no one had cheated.
a3. *x > y*.

Questions:
1. Can a1, a2 and a3 combined express the meaning of sentence (a)?
2. Is sentence (a2) grammatically correct (especially the "the score would have been" part)?

I'd really appreciate your confirming and shedding some light.


----------



## lingobingo

The score is higher than would have been the case if…
=
The score is higher than it would have been if…

Because some people cheated, the score came out unnaturally high / higher than it would otherwise have been.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> The score is higher than would have been the case if…
> =
> The score is higher than it would have been if…
> 
> Because some people cheated, the score came out unnaturally high / higher than it would otherwise have been.



Thank you very much, Lingobingo!
I know "than it would have been if...", but I'm just not sure how "*than would have been the case* if..." is constructed. 
I was wondering if you could give me some other examples with "than would have been the case..." in them.


----------



## lingobingo

Doing it this way, the results are consistently *better than is the case* with alternative methods.

Because I did it this way, the result was *better than would have been the case* if I’d used a different method.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Doing it this way, the results are consistently *better than is the case* with alternative methods.
> 
> Because I did it this way, the result was *better than would have been the case* if I’d used a different method.



Super examples! Then I'd like to ask, what is *the subject of "is the case"* (as there's no singular noun before "than")?
Similarly, what is the subject of "*would have been* the case"?

Can I say something like "the results being that good" is the case or "the result being that good" would have been the case?


----------



## lingobingo

“The case” (meaning the situation) is the subject of the verb:

the results are better than* is/would be the case*…
=
the results are better than *the case is/would be* otherwise


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> “The case” (meaning the situation) is the subject of the verb:
> 
> the results are better than* is/would be the case*…
> =
> the results are better than *the case is/would be* otherwise




OK, I see. However, to my understanding, *an embedded clause* (such as "the results being y good" in "a2" below) is missing here.

a. The results are better than is the case with alternative methods.

Here’s my logical analysis of its structure:

a1. The results are x good.

a2. *The results being y good* is the case with alternative methods.

a3. x > y

How does my analysis sound to you?


----------



## lingobingo

grammar-in-use said:


> to my understanding, *an embedded clause* (such as "the results being y good" in "a2" below) is missing here.


There’s nothing missing. How would you express it with an “embedded” clause?

As for analysing it as an equation, you can do that if it helps — the result doing it this way (x) was better than if I’d done it the other way (y).

But personally, I don’t find that kind of approach remotely helpful! I’m all about words, not numbers.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> There’s nothing missing. How would you express it with an “embedded” clause?
> 
> As for analysing it as an equation, you can do that if it helps — the result doing it this way (x) was better than if I’d done it the other way (y).
> 
> But personally, I don’t find that kind of approach remotely helpful! I’m all about words, not numbers.



I'd also be all about words if I were a native speaker of English.

Since you say:


lingobingo said:


> *“The case”* (meaning the situation) is *the subject *of the verb:
> 
> the results are better than* is/would be the case*…
> =
> the results are better than *the case is/would be* otherwise


What would you say is the subject of the predicative "*is* necessary" in the sentence below:

b. Don't spend any longer on this question than *is necessary*.
??


----------



## lingobingo

_Don’t spend any longer on this question than is necessary._​
This is a comparative, meaning: Don’t spend any *longer* on this question *than you need to*.

If you were to express it as a statement (rather than an imperative), you would normally use a dummy subject:

*It* is not necessary to spend any longer on this question.
which could be paraphrased as:​Spending any longer on this question is unnecessary.​
Another way of looking at it is as a reduced prepositional phrase:

Don’t spend any longer on this question than [it] is necessary [for you to spend].
or:
Don’t spend any longer on this question than [it is] necessary [for you to spend].​


----------



## kentix

Since I'm happy with numbers I'll go back to your original questions.



grammar-in-use said:


> I'm trying to figure out how "than would have been the case" is constructed. Here's my attempt:
> a1. The score is *x high*.
> a2. It would have been the case that the score would have been *y high* if no one had cheated.
> a3. *x > y*.
> 
> Questions:
> 1. Can a1, a2 and a3 combined express the meaning of sentence (a)? *Yes*
> 2. Is sentence (a2) grammatically correct (especially the "the score would have been" part)? *Y​es (I think. I think maybe that the first sentence should be "the score was x high" to match 2.).*


----------



## Loob

I find this structure with "than" - and the similar one with "as" - really, really difficult to explain.

Your post1 sentence is taken from the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, _and, to be honest, I find the explanation given there rather unconvincing: the suggestion is that the missing part is something like  "the score being that high".

If I ever come across an explanation that makes 100% sense to me, I'll post it here!


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Don’t spend any longer on this question than [it] is necessary [for you to spend].
> or:
> Don’t spend any longer on this question than [it is] necessary [for you to spend].​



I agree to these two paraphrases. And I think we could also make them *structurally complete*, like:
Don’t spend any longer (=x long) on this question than [it] is necessary [for you to spend y long on this question].

What do you think?


----------



## lingobingo

Sorry, I don’t get that. Cue kentix…


----------



## grammar-in-use

kentix said:


> Since I'm happy with numbers I'll go back to your original questions.


Thank you very much for confirming!

Meaning is comparatively easy. What's hard is form - the structure you natives build to express meaning. 

As Stanley Fish says in his _How to Write a Sentence_, “Despite the familiar proverb, it’s not the thought that counts. Form, form, form, and only form is the road to what the classical theorists called ‘invention’, the art of coming up with something to say.” If we non-native speakers are to "invent" something to say in English, we'll have to learn to think the way you guys do.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> I find this structure with "than" - and the similar one with "as" - really, really difficult to explain.
> 
> If I ever come across an explanation that makes 100% sense to me, I'll post it here!



Yes, comparative structures are hard to form (for us non-natives) and explain (for you natives).

I'll patiently wait here for your explanation...


----------



## grammar-in-use

@Edinburgher  As a bilingual, could you please cast some light on this issue? 
a. The score is higher *than would have been* the case if no one had cheated.
b. Don't spend any longer on this question* than is necessary*.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi, Grammar-in-use. Just a suggestion: think of “than” as a relative pronoun in this kind of sentences and you’ll be more comfortable.


----------



## manfy

thetazuo said:


> Hi, Grammar-in-use. Just a suggestion: think of “than” as a relative pronoun in this kind of sentences and you’ll be more comfortable.


 But that's kind of hard to justify, don't you think?
Then I'd rather think of it as a fused relative clause with the pronoun elided:
The score is higher *than [what] would have been* the case if no one had cheated.
Here, the pronoun 'what' is the fused form of 'that which' and now you can look at the comparative clause as a noun phrase:
'that [score] which would have been the case if no one had cheated' = 'the (expected) score without cheating'

So, when you reduce it, you're comparing the two underlined noun phrases, which turns this into a straightforward, unambiguous comparison:
The (actual) score is higher than the (expected) score without cheating.

A word of caution: This interpretation makes sense to me for the purpose of understanding the structure, however, I'm not sure if a grammarian would formally agree with it!


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> could you please cast some light on this issue?
> a. The score is higher *than would have been* the case if no one had cheated.
> b. Don't spend any longer on this question* than is necessary*.


In examples like "You are taller than me." _than_ can behave like a preposition, but it is generally a conjunction: "You are taller than I am." (sometimes abbreviated to the curious-sounding "You are taller than I.").

In terms of meaning, the  straightforward explanation of (a) was given in #2.  LB's equivalent simply removes the slightly confusing "something being the case" construction.
Why say "It would have been the case that the score is lower" when "The score would have been lower"  conveys the same idea in a simpler way?
What (a) is doing is comparing an actual score with a hypothetical score, but the two items being compared need not always be grammatically equivalent, like noun and noun ("The tortoise is slower than the hare.").  Here we have noun and clause.
Sentence (a) could have been written in reverse, so to speak, as "If no-one had cheated, the score would have been lower than it actually is." {from which  "than it actually is" could be removed without changing the meaning}.
It could even have been written as "If no-one had cheated, *it* would have been the case that the score is lower {than it is}.", and then the highlighted _it_ would have been a dummy _it_.  This dummy-it is usually removed when the order is changed into that used in the original (a).

As for example (b), perhaps this can be thought of as elision: Don't spend any longer on this question than {the amount of time that} is necessary.

(I don't like the "_than_ as a relative pronoun" idea either)


----------



## thetazuo

manfy said:


> But that's kind of hard to justify, don't you think?


Hi, Manfy. There is an entry in my grammar book which might justify my thinking. It goes like this:
_Than_ and _as_ can replace subject in clauses (rather like relative pronouns):
He worries more than is necessary. (NOT ... more than it/what is necessary.)

So adding “what” between “than” and “would have” seems wrong to me, although I agree that it is a helpful approach to analyzing the construction.

I’m used to thinking that the word “than” is a conjunction and relative pronoun rolled into one when it is used to replace a subject.

Edit: Edinburgher has made a good point. But I don’t really think involving a dummy it is necessary. “Than” can function as a subject in its own right.

I think we can even remove “the case” by saying “The score is higher than would have been if no one had cheated“.
Does it make sense?
Or maybe I’ve just missed the general point of the whole discussion.


----------



## Loob

thetazuo said:


> I think we can even remove “the case” by saying “The score is higher than would have been if no one had cheated“.


No we can't, unfortunately - we'd need to say/write:
_The score is higher than *it* would have been if no one had cheated.
_


----------



## thetazuo

Loob said:


> No we can't, unfortunately - we'd need to say/write:
> _The score is higher than *it* would have been if no one had cheated.
> _


Thanks, Loob. I’m not surprised. I think it doesn’t work because, without “it”, it’s not clear what “than” actually functions as, since there’s some missing after “been”. (does it replace the subject or the object?)
Just like we say
They sent more vegetables than I had ordered.
But not, 
They sent more vegetables than had ordered.
But we can say,
He ran faster than would have done.
Makes sense?


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> But we can say,
> He ran faster than would have done.
> Makes sense?


It makes no sense at all. Quite apart from the fact that it needs an if-clause to explain the significance of “would”, the clause after *than* needs its own subject (even though that subject is the same as in the main clause).

In these Cambridge examples (Comparison: clauses - Cambridge Dictionary) the subject can be omitted, but only if its verb is omitted too:

_He finished the second part more quickly than [he did] the first part.
We finished the job quicker than [we had] expected._​


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> In these Cambridge examples (Comparison: clauses - Cambridge Dictionary) the subject can be omitted, but only if its verb is omitted too:
> 
> _He finished the second part more quickly than [he did] the first part.
> We finished the job quicker than [we had] expected._


Thank you, lb. OK, this time I’m surprised. I have seen many examples with “than” where the subject is omitted while its verb remains.
For example, 
There were a lot of people at the exhibition - more *than* came last year.
Why this works while mine doesn’t? I think there might be some other reasons?


----------



## manfy

I may have found something!
Based on LB's post #6


lingobingo said:


> “The case” (meaning the situation) is the subject of the verb:
> 
> the results are better than* is/would be the case*…
> =
> the results are better than *the case is/would be* otherwise


and this link on inversion


> *[row 4: comparatives]*
> Inversion is optional.
> Used with all verbs.
> *We normally only have inversion here if we are comparing subjects of the verb, not objects.*


we can look at the OP sentence as a comparative with substitution and subject-verb inversion:
_The score is higher than would have been the case if no-one had cheated._​
'The case' is a substitute for the main clause subject 'the score' and together with its complement 'if no-one had cheated' it is the entity that is being compared with 'the score' in the main clause. 

Hmm...that still doesn't explain why "The score is higher than would have been the score if no-one had cheated." sounds so odd, maybe even ungrammatical?? 
I better go and do some more thinking.


----------



## Edinburgher

thetazuo said:


> There is an entry in my grammar book which might justify my thinking. It goes like this:
> _Than_ and _as_ can replace subject in clauses (rather like relative pronouns):
> He worries more than is necessary. (NOT ... more than it/what is necessary.)


I think your book is mistaken, and is giving a misinterpretation of what is happening.
It is the syntactic structure of this example that makes the dummy subject unnecessary.  This is not the same as "than" taking on the role of subject.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Thank you very much, Edinburgher!
After reading your enlightening observations, I have a couple of questions.



Edinburgher said:


> Why say "It would have been the case that the score* is* lower" when "The score would have been lower"  conveys the same idea in a simpler way?


Great question! But I'd say "*would have been*" instead of "*is*" here. So, I'd rewrite your version:


Edinburgher said:


> It could even have been written as "If no-one had cheated, *it* would have been the case that the score *is* lower {than it is}.",


as:
If no-one had cheated, *it* would have been the case that the score *would have been* lower {than it is}.

This matches what I did in post #1 (which is also confirmed by Kentix in post #11)

As we all know, "the score *is* lower {than it is}", standing alone, doesn't make sense (- Likewise, we can't say "*I am taller than I am"). So I doubt if it works when inserted into the matrix clause "*it* would have been the case that ...". That's why I chose to use "would have been (lower)" here and in post #1 as well. I'm not sure if my observation is correct or not. So, can any other natives give their opinions on "*is* (lower)" VS "*would have been* (lower)"?

Another of my observations is that "than" seems to be able to be treated as a relative conjunction referring back to the whole matrix clause (consider the relative pronoun "which" can refer to the whole main clause, as in sentences "a1" and "b1" below). To compare:

a. The score is higher *than* would have been the case if no one had cheated.
=a1. The score is unnaturally high, *which* would *NOT* have been the case if no one had cheated.

This observation can also be applicable to the second sentence:
b. Don't spend any longer on this question *than* is necessary.
=b1. Don't spend that long on this question,* which* is *NOT* necessary.

Please note that I added "*NOT*" in the which-clauses, in order to substitute for *the comparative adjectives* (higher/longer). In terms of meaning, sentence (a) is equivalent to sentence (a1), and sentence (b) equivalent to sentence (b1). Thus, we've got one rule that can explain the comparative clauses of this kind. At least, this observation makes sense to me and helps me construct comparative  sentences of similar structure and make a confident and consistent judgement of whether a comparative is grammatically correct or not.


----------



## Loob

Edinburgher said:


> I think your book is mistaken, and is giving a misinterpretation of what is happening.


I think thetazuo, in post 21,  is quoting from _Practical English Usage _by Michael Swan. Swan is trying to give a simple explanation, I suspect.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Thanks a lot, Loob.

What do you think of this:


grammar-in-use said:


> So, can any other natives give their opinions on "*is* (lower)" VS "*would have been* (lower)"?



Please see post #28 for details.


----------



## manfy

grammar-in-use said:


> a. The score is higher *than* would have been the case if no one had cheated.
> =a1. The score is unnaturally high, *which* would *NOT* have been the case if no one had cheated.
> 
> This observation can also be applicable to the second sentence:
> b. Don't spend any longer on this question *than* is necessary.
> =b1. Don't spend that long on this question,* which* is *NOT* necessary.


That doesn't work for me as a generalization, I'm afraid. b and b1 convey a different idea.

If you apply this approach to the sentence in the inversion link I posted above, the discrepancy is even more obvious:
c. Cheetahs run faster than do antelopes.
c1. Cheetahs run fast, *which* antelopes do *NOT*.

Now c1 is clearly different and in fact wrong, because antelopes do run fast; it's just that cheetahs run even faster.


----------



## grassy

manfy said:


> c1. Cheetahs run fast, *which* antelopes do *NOT*.



To me it's both wrong and untrue.


----------



## grammar-in-use

manfy said:


> If you apply this approach to the sentence in the inversion link I posted above, the discrepancy is even more obvious:
> c. Cheetahs run faster than do antelopes.
> c1. Cheetahs run fast, *which* antelopes do *NOT*.
> 
> Now c1 is clearly different and in fact wrong, because antelopes do run fast; it's just that cheetahs run even faster.



I'm afraid you got me wrong. 
To me, your "c" has nothing to do with my "a" and "b", in that "than" kind of works as a subject in both "a" and "b", whereas it does not do so in your "c", in which "antelopes" is the subject.
Please also note that I don't think there is any inversion involved in either "a" or "b", unlike your "c".

My approach can also be applicable to Swan's example:
d. He worries more *than* is necessary.
=d1. He worries too much, *which* is *NOT* necessary.

This can also explain why you cannot add "it" after "than", the same as you cannot add "it" after "which", like you cannot say "..., *which* *it** is *NOT* necessary", just as Swan warns of "NOT ... more than *it/what** is necessary".


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> I'd rewrite your version (...) as:
> If no-one had cheated, *it* would have been the case that the score *would have been* lower {than it is}.
> 
> This matches what I did in post #1 (which is also confirmed by Kentix in post #11)


I'm afraid that doesn't work for me.  It may well be technically acceptable in purely grammatical terms, but doubling up on the "would have been" sounds exceedingly unidiomatic.


Loob said:


> I think thetazuo, in post 21, is quoting from _Practical English Usage _by Michael Swan


Oh dear.  There are plenty of English grammar books by Chinese authors which contain many inaccuracies, and I had suspected it might have been one of them.  A bit of a _faux pas_ on my part, it would seem. 
Perhaps thetazuo slightly misquoted, or at least Swan meant, that _"Than_ and _as_ can *displace* (not replace) the subject".


----------



## Forero

grammar-in-use said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Here's a sentence from a grammar book:
> 
> a. The score is higher than would have been the case if no one had cheated.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how "than would have been the case" is constructed. Here's my attempt:
> a1. The score is *x high*.
> a2. It would have been the case that the score would have been *y high* if no one had cheated.
> a3. *x > y*.
> 
> Questions:
> 1. Can a1, a2 and a3 combined express the meaning of sentence (a)?
> 2. Is sentence (a2) grammatically correct (especially the "the score would have been" part)?
> 
> I'd really appreciate your confirming and shedding some light.


Your a1 and a2 are not idiomatic, since we don't normally say "x high"/"y high", but I think you have the right idea. Although we may be thinking about what number is the actual score (some number greater than some other number), sentence a is cast as a sentence about how high the score is (some "height" greater than some other "height").

Note also that neither _x_ nor _y_ here is a definite value, nor is either one necessarily "high" as opposed to "low".

"Than" in sentence a is not a preposition, and the clause beginning with "than" is similar to a relative clause. However, we can add words to express the same idea with "than" as a preposition. In particular, after "higher", "than would have been the case" can be expressed as "than however high or low would have been the case", which in sentence a would mean "than however high or low the score would have been" (not "than what (number) would have been the score").

I might break sentence a down as follows:

a1'. The score is higher than _y_ (which is indefinite and may be low rather than high).
a2'. Had no one cheated, it would have been the case that the score was _y_ or lower. (In other words, had no one cheated, "The score is _y_ or lower" would have been true/the case.)


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> I'm afraid that doesn't work for me.  It may well be technically acceptable in purely grammatical terms, but doubling up on the "would have been" sounds exceedingly unidiomatic.


Hmm. What about "The score *was* (lower)", instead of "*is*"?



Edinburgher said:


> There are plenty of English grammar books by Chinese authors which contain many inaccuracies



As a Chinese learner of English, I agree with you on this point.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Thank you very much for your responses.



Forero said:


> Your a1 and a2 are not idiomatic, since we don't normally say "x high"/"y high", but I think you have the right idea.


I know they're not idiomatic, but that's just a logical analysis. Here, "x"/"y" are degree modifiers, like "very"/"so"/that". So, you could take "x high"/"y high" as "very high/so high/that high etc".



Forero said:


> "Than" in sentence a is not a preposition, and the clause beginning with "than" is similar to a relative clause. However, we can add words to express the same idea with "than" as a preposition.


Good point! I completely agree.



Forero said:


> (In other words, Had no one cheated, *"The score is y or lower" *would have been true/the case.)


Yes, that's exactly what I meant. That's why I said in post #7 that *an embedded clause* (such as "the score being y high", or "*The score is y or lower*", as you wrote) is missing here.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Here's another comparative sentence with similar structure:

e. Estimates in the report imply that EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower *than otherwise would have been the case*, and those of the richest tenth 3% higher.

Now I'd like to supplement the than-clause with *an if-conditional*, by saying:
e1. ...EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower *than otherwise would have been the case if it had not been for EU migration*, ...

Does sentence (e1) make sense?

Furthermore, to employ Forero's approach to breaking down this kind of sentence, as shown in post #35:


Forero said:


> I might break sentence a down as follows:
> 
> a1'. The score is higher than _y_ (which is indefinite and may be low rather than high).
> a2'. Had no one cheated, it would have been the case that the score was _y_ or lower. (In other words, had no one cheated, "The score is _y_ or lower" would have been true/the case.)



I'm trying to break down Sentence (e) as follows:

e2. EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower than *y*.
e3. *If it had not been for EU migration*, it would have been the case that the wages of the poorest tenth was *y*.

Does this breakdown make sense?

I'd be very happy to hear any comments by you native speakers.


----------



## Forero

grammar-in-use said:


> Here's another comparative sentence with similar structure:
> 
> e. Estimates in the report imply that EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower *than otherwise would have been the case*, and those of the richest tenth 3% higher.
> 
> Now I'd like to supplement the than-clause with *an if-conditional*, by saying:
> e1. ...EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower *than otherwise would have been the case if it had not been for EU migration*, ...
> 
> Does sentence (e1) make sense?
> 
> Furthermore, to employ Forero's approach to breaking down this kind of sentence, as shown in post #35:
> 
> 
> I'm trying to break down Sentence (e) as follows:
> 
> e2. EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower than *y*.
> e3. *If it had not been for EU migration*, it would have been the case that the wages of the poorest tenth was *y*.
> 
> Does this breakdown make sense?
> 
> I'd be very happy to hear any comments by you native speakers.


It makes sense to me.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Forero said:


> It makes sense to me.



Great! Thanks a lot for confirming that

You know, some other comparative sentences with "than is the case" structures may be hard to break down using your approach, like this one:

f. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged more through the adoption of smartphones *than is currently the case *with widespread broadband internet connections.

How would you break it down or paraphrase it?

Here's my attempt:
f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones _*THAN*_ through the established broadband Internet connections.

Does Sentence (f1) make sense or is it semantically equivalent to Sentence (f)?


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> Hmm. What about "The score *was* (lower)", instead of "*is*"?


Do you mean "...than *would have been* the case if the score *was* lower"?  This "was" sounds good, and feels more idiomatic than "is", but the  "would have been" part already places the alternative into the past, so that there is no real need to put the if-part into the past as well.  Moreover, if you are going to put the if-part into the past, shouldn't you be using a past that is compatible with "would have been"?  Shouldn't it then be "if the score *had been* lower"?


grammar-in-use said:


> e1. ...EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower *than otherwise would have been the case if it had not been for EU migration*, ...
> Does sentence (e1) make sense?


 Well, yes, it makes sense, but that is not sufficient for it to be an example of good sentence construction.
Here you have two adverbial modifiers to "would have been the case", namely "otherwise" and "if it had not been...".  That's inelegant and unnatural.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> Well, yes, it makes sense, but that is not sufficient for it to be an example of good sentence construction.
> Here you have two adverbial modifiers to "would have been the case", namely "otherwise" and "if it had not been...".  That's inelegant and unnatural.



You're right. I forgot to delete "otherwise" when I wrote the if-clause. What about sentences (f) and (f1) above?


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> What about sentences (f) and (f1) above?


They are not good examples because there is an inherent problem with the semantics.  In my view (f) itself is already fatally flawed, which makes the attempt to explain it as (f1) hopeless.
If you're going to encourage something (in this case migration to something and growing participation in something), this typically requires doing something in order to encourage it.
Adopting smartphones is "doing something", but the current established scenario (with broadband connections) isn't "doing something"; in fact it is "doing nothing".  How can "doing nothing" encourage anything? 

With (f1) there is the additional problem that the second "through" targets the noun "connections", which paints totally the wrong picture.  There is no attempt to encourage anything *by means of* (=through) any connections.  "Connections" is merely part of the description of an established technology, in which houses are provided with hard-wired network access.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> They are not good examples because there is an inherent problem with the semantics.  In my view (f) itself is already fatally flawed, which makes the attempt to explain it as (f1) hopeless.



Here's the weblink for Sentence (f):
Wireless Politics: The Future of Democracy - Paperblog

Wireless devices will contribute to the changing social, political, and media consumption patterns of the global citizenry in ways that will have dramatic implications for democracy. The millennial generation has demonstrated a surprising affinity for political participation due to the inclusiveness of the social networking aspects of web 2.0 technologies. Personal mobile devices that are internet capable bring this inclusiveness to a whole new level and can leverage the full potential of social networks. *The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged more through the adoption of smartphones than is currently the case with widespread broadband internet connections. *This could lead to greater civic participation, or could degenerate into a fractured media landscape that promotes digital tribalism rather than healthy political engagement.

How would you improve on this "fatally flawed" sentence?


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> How would you improve on this "fatally flawed" sentence?


Probably by deleting all after "smartphones", and changing "encouraged more" to "further encouraged".
Of course, by thus removing the comparative element, the sentence then becomes unsuitable for the kind of analysis you are trying to do.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> Probably by deleting all after "smartphones", and changing "encouraged more" to "further encouraged".
> Of course, by thus removing the comparative element, the sentence then becomes *unsuitable for the kind of analysis you are trying to do*.



Thanks a lot, anyway!


----------



## manfy

grammar-in-use said:


> My approach can also be applicable to Swan's example:
> d. He worries more *than* is necessary.
> =d1. He worries too much, *which* is *NOT* necessary.


I'm afraid I'm still not convinced. In fact, I'm also not convinced by Swan's example assuming it is intended as a generalized representative example of this structure. I know that "He worries more than is necessary." is correct and that "He worries more than *it* is necessary." is considered wrong.
But then what about "This costs more than it's worth"?
It has the exact same structure: pronoun as subject > verb > adverb of degree > comparative conjunction > pronoun as subject > verb > adjective.
Is this ungrammatical? Does it have to be "This costs more than is worth"? If you say yes, then I strongly disagree.



grammar-in-use said:


> This can also explain why you cannot add "it" after "than", the same as you cannot add "it" after "which", like you cannot say "..., *which* *it** is *NOT* necessary", just as Swan warns of "NOT ... more than *it/what** is necessary".


The reason why "...which it is not necessary" doesn't work is clear and easily explained. 'Which' really _is_ a pronoun here and acts as the subject (it cannot be an object pronoun because this clause doesn't have an object). Therefore you can't add 'it' as a second subject.


----------



## lingobingo

In “This costs more than it’s worth”, *it* is a pronoun whose antecedent is “this”.

In “He worries more than it is necessary”, *it* would be a dummy subject: He worries more than *it is necessary to* [worry].


----------



## thetazuo

manfy said:


> Is this ungrammatical? Does it have to be "This costs more than is worth"? If you say yes, then I strongly disagree.





lingobingo said:


> In “This costs more than it’s worth”, *it* is a pronoun whose antecedent is “this”.


So whether or not does “This costs more than is worth" work? If it doesn’t, why? Is it because “worth” need to take a word?


----------



## lingobingo

No, it doesn’t work. The verb “is” needs a subject.

This bike costs more…
More than what?
More than is worth 
More than it is worth  = More than this bike is worth


----------



## grammar-in-use

manfy said:


> But then what about "This costs more than it's worth"?
> Does it have to be "This costs more than is worth"? If you say yes, then I strongly disagree.



You've confused yourself by using the wrong example, I'm afraid.
To me, "a. This costs more than it's worth" is structurally different from "b. He worries more than it is necessary" *in many respects*.

I'd like to analyze sentence (a) this way:
a1. This costs more than *y*.
a2. *It (=this*) is worth *y*.

Please note that "worth" needs an object (which is *y* here), while "necessary" can't take an object. This is one way that they differ.

Another way to look at sentence (a) is as I did in post #1:
a1. This costs *x* much.
a2. *It (=this*) is worth *y *much.
a3. x > y


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> No, it doesn’t work. The verb “is” needs a subject.
> 
> This bike costs more…
> More than what?
> More than is worth
> More than it is worth  = More than this bike is worth



Yeah, I completely agree!


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, lb. Then how about this version of the bike example?
“He paid more than is needed for the bike”?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, that construction’s fine, but it’s not idiomatic (especially with present-tense “is”).

He paid more than he needed to for the bike / He paid more than [was] necessary for the bike​


----------



## Forero

grammar-in-use said:


> Great! Thanks a lot for confirming that
> 
> You know, some other comparative sentences with "than is the case" structures may be hard to break down using your approach, like this one:
> 
> f. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged more through the adoption of smartphones *than is currently the case *with widespread broadband internet connections.
> 
> How would you break it down or paraphrase it?
> 
> Here's my attempt:
> f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones _*THAN*_ through the established broadband Internet connections.
> 
> Does Sentence (f1) make sense or is it semantically equivalent to Sentence (f)?


You are missing "currently":

After "more", "than is currently the case" is equivalent to "than however much is currently the case", which in context means "than however much they are currently being encouraged".

f1'. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones *THAN* [however much or little] they are currently being encouraged through the established broadband Internet connections.


----------



## regalcookk

Probably by deleting all after "smartphones", and changing "encouraged more" to "further encouraged".
Of course, by thus removing the comparative element, the sentence then becomes unsuitable for the kind of analysis you are trying to do.


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Yes, that construction’s fine, but it’s not idiomatic (especially with present-tense “is”).
> 
> He paid more than he needed to for the bike / He paid more than [was] necessary for the bike​


Thank you for your correction.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Forero said:


> f1'. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones *THAN* [however much or little] they are currently being encouraged through the established broadband Internet connections.



Thank you! Your paraphrase does make sense to me. However, you seem to think that the "more" modifies the verb phrase "will be encouraged", whereas I thought it qualified the preposition phrase "through the adoption of smartphones".
You: *will be encouraged MORE* through the adoption of smartphones
VS
Me: will be encouraged *MORE through the adoption of smartphones*

Are they the same in meaning or function?

I'm trying to break it down, using your approach and mine, as follows:
Breakdown #1 (using your method):
a. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged *more* through the adoption of smartphones than _*y much *_(similar in meaning to "however much or little").
b. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.

Breakdown #2 (using mine method):
f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*x much*_ through the adoption of smartphones.
f2. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.
f3. *x > y

What do you think?*


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> You: *will be encouraged MORE* through the adoption of smartphones
> VS
> Me: will be encouraged *MORE through the adoption of smartphones*


I don't understand what contrast you see between these alternative groupings.  You can't look at the MORE part in isolation without the THAN part.
The idea is that the adoption of smartphones will provide an amount X of encouragement, and the established technologies will provide an amount Y of encouragement, and the claim is that X>Y.


----------



## manfy

grammar-in-use said:


> Please note that "worth" needs an object (which is *y* here), while "necessary" can't take an object. This is one way that they differ.


 Thanks, LB and GIU.
I missed to take that into consideration and I agree that my sentence cannot be directly compared with yours.
But to get something out of it, at least it shows that comparative sentences cannot easily be generalized for the purpose of getting a one-fits-all explanation of the grammar concepts involved.


----------



## Forero

f1'. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones *THAN* [however much or little] they are currently being encouraged through the established broadband Internet connections.[/QUOTE]


grammar-in-use said:


> Great! Thanks a lot for confirming that
> 
> You know, some other comparative sentences with "than is the case" structures may be hard to break down using your approach, like this one:
> 
> f. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged more through the adoption of smartphones *than is currently the case *with widespread broadband internet connections.
> 
> How would you break it down or paraphrase it?
> 
> Here's my attempt:
> f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*MORE*_ through the adoption of smartphones _*THAN*_ through the established broadband Internet connections.
> 
> Does Sentence (f1) make sense or is it semantically equivalent to Sentence (f)?





grammar-in-use said:


> Thank you! Your paraphrase does make sense to me. However, you seem to think that the "more" modifies the verb phrase "will be encouraged", whereas I thought it qualified the preposition phrase "through the adoption of smartphones".
> You: *will be encouraged MORE* through the adoption of smartphones
> VS
> Me: will be encouraged *MORE through the adoption of smartphones*
> 
> Are they the same in meaning or function?
> 
> I'm trying to break it down, using your approach and mine, as follows:
> Breakdown #1 (using your method):
> a. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged *more* through the adoption of smartphones than _*y much *_(similar in meaning to "however much or little").
> b. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.
> 
> Breakdown #2 (using mine method):
> f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*x much*_ through the adoption of smartphones.
> f2. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.
> f3. *x > y
> 
> What do you think?*


Are you thinking of "more" as "a larger part or percentage"? I don't think that fits.

The "x much" is not about what part of some presumed encouragement is through the adoption of smartphones. It is probably about the extent to which "encouraged" fits the situation.

The comparison is between how much the migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged through the adoption of smartphones and how much is currently "the case" with widespread broadband internet connections.

I'm afraid "the case" is not very well defined in this context. For example, "how much is currently the case" could mean "how much they are currently encouraged" or "how much they are currently being encouraged".


----------



## Edinburgher

Forero said:


> The comparison is between how much the migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged through the adoption of smartphones and how much is currently "the case" with widespread broadband internet connections.


Exactly. The comparison indicates which of the two options more strongly encourages the migration.


> For example, "how much is currently the case" could mean "how much they are currently encouraged" or "how much they are currently being encouraged".


My understanding of what they mean by that is how much migration might occur under the arrangements that are currently in place (hard-wired internet connections such as broadband).  I agree that the construction with "is currently the case" does not work too well here.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Forero said:


> Are you thinking of "more" as "*a larger part or percentage*"? I don't think that fits.
> The "x much" is not about what part of some presumed encouragement is through the adoption of smartphones. It is probably about *the extent* to which "encouraged" fits the situation.



Thanks! I got it. You're right. It's about the "increment of encouragement" not about the "stock of encouragement", so to speak.



grammar-in-use said:


> I'm trying to break it down, using your approach and mine, as follows:
> Breakdown #1 (using your method):
> a. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged *more* through the adoption of smartphones than _*y much *_(similar in meaning to "however much or little").
> b. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.
> 
> Breakdown #2 (using mine method):
> f1. The migration to new media channels and the growing participatory culture will be encouraged _*x much*_ through the adoption of smartphones.
> f2. It is currently the case that “they are being encouraged _*y much*_ through the established broadband internet connections”.
> f3. *x > y*



I'd be happy to hear your comments on these two types of breakdown. Do they make sense?


----------



## manfy

Hmm, I'm having some trouble following your train of thought with these breakdowns/transformations.
But I can see what you're aiming at with this:


grammar-in-use said:


> You (Forero): *will be encouraged MORE* through the adoption of smartphones
> VS
> Me (GIU): will be encouraged *MORE through the adoption of smartphones*


Let's simplify the sentence first to make things clearer. The author's prediction (which was made in 2011 -- at an infant stage of smartphones and wireless internet, I might add) is this:
Migration will be encouraged more through technology A than is currently the case with technology B.​Technology A = smartphone + average speed wireless internet.
Technology B = fixed-location highspeed internet.

Forero's reading: Migration *will be encouraged more* through technology A than is currently the case with technology B.
The comparative clause (starting with 'than') says that the current technology B does create some level of encouragement for migration and the main clause predicts that technology A will encourage (=boost/stimulate) this migration more.
That's coherent.

GIU's reading: Migration *will be encouraged* more through technology A than is currently the case with technology B.
The verb phrase "will be encouraged" (without "more") suggests that what follows are predictions for the future. However, the comparative clause explicitly states the current situation and therefore this reading doesn't work well. (you can't compare a growth rate with/to a state, can you?)

Your reading would work with : Migration *will be encouraged* more through technology A than through technology B.
Now the sentence suggests and predicts that the existing level of migration, which is unknown or probably low, will be encouraged/driven more by technology A than by technology B. That means, the sentence predicts the impact of two competing technologies on migration to new media channels. That seems semantically coherent, too.


----------



## grammar-in-use

manfy said:


> That means, the sentence predicts *the impact of two competing technologies on migration* to new media channels.



If I understand it correctly, *this remark of yours* can apply to both:


manfy said:


> Forero's reading: Migration *will be encouraged more* through technology A than is currently the case with technology B.


and:


manfy said:


> Migration *will be encouraged* more through technology A than through technology B.



Both of which reflect "*the impact of two competing technologies on migration* to new media channels", right? Think again.


----------

