# scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which she floated



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

In thr following extract from _Frankenstein_, is the definite article in bold used correctly?

Last Monday (July 31st), we were nearly surrounded by ice, which closed in the ship on all sides, scarcely leaving her *the *sea-room in which she floated. Our situation was somewhat dangerous, especially as we were compassed round by a very thick fog.

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## se16teddy

Why do you think it might be wrong?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I'm thinking about "leaving her scarcely *any *searoom . . ."


----------



## se16teddy

The defining relative clause _in which she floated _makes the sea-room (space between the icebergs) definite.


----------



## Uncle Jack

It says how much sea-room the ship had: a little bit more than the space occupied by the ship. We can imagine the ice lying just a few metres off.


----------



## Loob

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I'm thinking about "leaving her scarcely *any *searoom . . ."


"Leaving her scarcely any searoom in which she floated" would be wrong.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> "Leaving her scarcely any searoom in which she floated" would be wrong.



How about "leaving her scarcely any searoom in which she *could *float"?


----------



## se16teddy

Maybe you have misunderstood the text. The ship *is* floating in some sea-room. there is no "could" about it.


----------



## Andygc

Think what the sentence means.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> scarcely leaving her *the *sea-room in which she floated.


... scarcely leaving her the space in which she floated. 

She floated in the small amount of sea that was not frozen, and that was only just enough space.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Think what the sentence means.
> 
> ... scarcely leaving her the space in which she floated.
> 
> She floated in the small amount of sea that was not frozen, and that was only just enough space.



How about the following?

The fat guy came into the cubicle, leaving me scarcely any/the room to stand.


----------



## Andygc

Are you asking about any and the? You can use either. But the sentence structure is different from the original sentence you asked about.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Are you asking about any and the? You can use either. But the sentence structure is different from the original sentence you asked about.



Is there any crucial difference?


----------



## Andygc

Any crucial difference between what and what?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Between "The fat guy came into the cubicle, leaving me scarcely any/the room to stand" and ". . . we were nearly surrounded by ice, which closed in the ship on all sides, scarcely leaving her *the *sea-room in which she floated. "


----------



## Andygc

"The fat guy came into the cubicle, scarcely leaving me the room in which I stood."

I'd call that a pretty crucial difference.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Is the "any" correct in the following?

The fat guy came into the cubicle, scarcely leaving me the/any room in which I stood.

How does the above differ from "The fat guy came into the cubicle, scarcely leaving me the/any room to stand"?


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Is the "any" correct in the following?


No. You've already been told that by others. See Loob's post.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How does the above differ


A relative clause. The use of the infinitive


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> A relative clause. The use of the infinitive



How do the relative claues and the infinitival pharse differ in meaning in those sentences?


----------



## Andygc

Already answered in post 4.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Already answered in post 4.



That post doesn't mention anything about the infinitive.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I don't understand what it is that puzzles you, @raymondaliasapollyon. In your original post, you asked about "the", and whether it is required. It is required because the phrased defines the amount of sea-room.

While I expect the writer could have said "scarcely leaving her any sea-room", it would then be wrong to add "in which she floated", because "any sea-room" does not need qualifying in the way "the sea-room" does. It would also be wrong to add "in which she could float" since this intrinsic to the meaning of "sea-room". When a ship runs out of sea room, it hits something.

However, "scarcely leaving her any sea-room" seems to me to be far less precise. How much is "any"? A mile, perhaps? This would be precious little sea-room in many circumstances. "Scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which she floated" shows that the sea-room she had was only a little larger than the size of the ship. I guessed at the ice being a few metres in post #5. This may be too much, but I don't think it can be too little.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Already answered in post 4.



It is true that only "the" is correct in the original, but the mere fact that there's a defining relative clause in the original does not justify the use of "the." "Any" could also be used with a defining relative clause, as in "I don't like any of the books Peter sent me."

What needs to be explained is why "any" cannot not be used instead in the original.

None of the replies has touched on the core of the issue, i.e., contradiction.  Consider "I like scarcely any books Peter sent me."  It implies that there are still books sent by Peter that the speaker likes, although the amount is extremely small, close to zero. Therefore, "leaving the ship scarcely any sea room in which she floated" would mean that very little sea room in which the ship floated remained; that is, most of the sea room in which the ship floated was occupied by ice.  Herein lies the contradiction.  If a particular stretch of sea room was occupied by ice, it could not be provided for the ship to float in at the same time.


----------



## Andygc

You just found a way of explaining why "any" is wrong. What is your question?


----------



## Ponyprof

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It is true that only "the" is correct in the original, but the mere fact that there's a defining relative clause in the original does not justify the use of "the." "Any" could also be used with a defining relative clause, as in "I don't like any of the books Peter sent me."
> 
> What needs to be explained is why "any" cannot not be used instead in the original.
> 
> None of the replies has touched on the core of the issue, i.e., contradiction.  Consider "I like scarcely any books Peter sent me."  It implies that there are still books sent by Peter that the speaker likes, although the amount is extremely small, close to zero. Therefore, "leaving the ship scarcely any sea room in which she floated" would mean that very little sea room in which the ship floated remained; that is, most of the sea room in which the ship floated was occupied by ice.  Herein lies the contradiction.  If a particular stretch of sea room was occupied by ice, it could not be provided for the ship to float in at the same time.



There are obviously lots of ways to get the general idea across and different sentences you could write about how a ship was hemmed in by ice.

However, in the sentence you quote from Frankenstein, you cannot merely replace "the" with another word. 

You could say

scarcely leaving her any searoom in which she could float.

But that sentence says something different.

There are a number of similar constructions with "the."

All I need is the air that I breathe.

He worshipped the ground on which she walked.

I did not have the room to do my job properly.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> You just found a way of explaining why "any" is wrong. What is your question?



It is essentially useless to refer to post #4 for an explanation of why "any" would be wrong.


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It is essentially useless to refer to post #4 for an explanation of why "any" would be wrong.


Useless to refer to a post that tells you why "any" is wrong? "... scarcely leaving her XXX searoom in which she floated" The use of "in which she floated mandates" _the_.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Useless to refer to a post that tells you why "any" is wrong? "... scarcely leaving her XXX searoom in which she floated" The use of "in which she floated mandates" _the_.



The use of a defining relative clause does not mandate "the." One could say, for example, "I like scarcely any books Peter sent me." This contains the relative clause "Peter sent me," but "any" is correct nevertheless.


----------



## Andygc

In the context of the sentence in the original text it does, and the context is always an essential component of any discussion.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I like scarcely any books Peter sent me."


A very different sentence, and not related to the thread topic, but in any case it would never pass my lips "I like scarcely any of the books Peter sent me."



Ponyprof said:


> I did not have the room to do my job properly.


Although the use of the infinitive does permit the use of "any", albeit with a change in meaning: "I did not have any room to do my job properly".


----------



## se16teddy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The use of a defining relative clause does not mandate "the." One could say, for example, "I like scarcely any books Peter sent me." This contains the relative clause "Peter sent me," but "any" is correct nevertheless.


There may be cases where a defining relative clause does not mandate “the”: I am not sure. But even if it is true, this is is not a convincing example because I would always say _I didn’t really like any *of the *books he sent me._


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> In the context of the sentence in the original text it does, and the context is always an essential component of any discussion.



So the mere presence of a relative clause in the original is not sufficient as an answer to the question. There is something that really accounts for the anomaly of "any," and that something is contradiction.



Andygc said:


> A very different sentence, and not related to the thread topic, but in any case it would never pass my lips "I like scarcely any of the books Peter sent me."



The point in question remains in that above version: "Peter sent me" is still a relative clause, and there's the "scarecely any" in front.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

se16teddy said:


> There may be cases where a defining relative clause does not mandate “the”: I am not sure. But even if it is true, this is is not a good example because I would always say _I didn’t really like any *of the *books he sent me._



You could refer to the following passage composed in Mary Shelley's time:

_As there are scarcely any occupations which_ form a diversion to the monotonous uniformity of the household life, or which could make use of these contrasts, they break out on subjects relating to minor details, such as warmth of rooms

The United States Democratic Review


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Here's a British example from roughly the same era:

_. . . there is scarcely any thing which he_ might not accomplish — scarcely any thing to which he might not aspire . . .

The British Critic, Quarterly Theological Review, and Ecclesiastical Record


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> So the mere presence of a relative clause in the original is not sufficient as an answer to the question.


In general terms, it might well be possible to have "any" + noun + relative clause, but it does not work with this particular relative clause in this particular situation. "Scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which she floated" defines the amount of sea-room she had. "Scarcely leaving her any sea-room" also defines the amount of sea-room she had.

I don't see why you should find this use so puzzling, since this is a standard use of "any" to avoid specifying an amount:
Do you have four pounds for the parking meter?​Do you have any money/coins/change for the parking meter?​We do not say
Do you have any four pounds for the parking meter?​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> In general terms, it might well be possible to have "any" + noun + relative clause, but it does not work with this particular relative clause in this particular situation. "Scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which she floated" defines the amount of sea-room she had. "Scarcely leaving her any sea-room" also defines the amount of sea-room she had.



I definitely agree "any" would be wrong in the original, although for a different reason.  See post #22.



Uncle Jack said:


> I don't see why you should find this use so puzzling, since this is a standard use of "any" to avoid specifying an amount:
> Do you have four pounds for the parking meter?​Do you have any money/coins/change for the parking meter?​We do not say
> Do you have any four pounds for the parking meter?​



Here's a contemporary example of using "any" with a number:

To your knowledge, Mr. Hagan, within the timeframe that has been suggested for that consolidation, are _there *any three offices, any three buildings, any three places* anywhere in this country,  *where *you could consolidate the entire paper processing of the Veterans' Administration's current 58 offices? _

Compensation, DIC, SGLI, and VGLI Programs


----------



## grassy

Here "any" means something like "whatever", Ray.
We don't say "whatever four pounds". Four pounds are the same everywhere.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

You've found an explanation for why people don't say "*any four pounds," but that does not mean that using "any" with a number is in principle incorrect, The quoted example shows there's no such inherent incompatibility.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The point is that "any" removes the need to give a description beyond what is essential to the meaning. Not only does it remove this need, but it makes adding a further description wrong.

Without reading all of the dialogue you quoted from in post #34, I imagine that there being three buildings was significant; the requirement was specifically for three building, so that asking about whether there were "any buildings" would exclude an essential part of the meaning, as this would be interpreted as asking about whether there was any _single _building.

The manner in which this further description is expressed does not matter. It might be as a quantifier, an adjective, a relative clause or anything else. If the expression contains a description that is encompassed within "any", then it cannot be used.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> The point is that "any" removes the need to give a description beyond what is essential to the meaning. Not only does it remove this need, but it makes adding a further description wrong.



Is it easy to determine what kind of description is essential to the meaning when using "any"?
Consider "We went to John's house last Friday. Scarcely *any *space *occupied by him* was clean."

Is the "occupied by him" essential to the meaning? Is it wrong to use "any" with it?


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Is it easy to determine what kind of description is essential to the meaning when using "any"?


It is easy for the *writer *to determine this, yes.

Readers know that it is essential to the meaning because the writer chose to include the description.

In the OP, it is obvious that "in which she floated" adds no essential information, so we know that saying "any sea-room in which she floated" is wrong. However, if the sentence had been different, and read "...scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which to manoeuvre", for example, then it is quite likely that "in which to manoeuvre" is essential to the meaning, so "...scarcely leaving her any sea-room in which to manoeuvre" would be fine.

When presented with a sentence that someone else has written, it is often not possible, without knowing the exact situation and what was in the writer's mind, to be able to say whether changing the wording of a sentence is right or not. It might be grammatically correct and it might make sense, but it might no longer accurately reflect the meaning the writer wanted to convey.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> It is easy for the *writer *to determine this, yes.
> 
> Readers know that it is essential to the meaning because the writer chose to include the description.



But in the example  "We went to John's house last Friday. Scarcely any space *occupied by him/available to him* was clean," the boldfaced phrase appears inessential, as the space within John's house was of course his to use. Still, it is correct even in company with "any."




Uncle Jack said:


> In the OP, it is obvious that "in which she floated" adds no essential information, so we know that saying "any sea-room in which she floated" is wrong. However, if the sentence had been different, and read "...scarcely leaving her the sea-room in which to manoeuvre", for example, then it is quite likely that "in which to manoeuvre" is essential to the meaning, so "...scarcely leaving her any sea-room in which to manoeuvre" would be fine.



But consider the variant " . . . leaving her scarcely any sea-room in which she was manoeuvring."  It suffers the same problem of contradiction as " . . . leaving her scarcely any sea-room in which she floated"  and is thus incorrect. But you woudn't say the "in which she was manoeuvring" in the former is an inessential description.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But in the example "We went to John's house last Friday. Scarcely any space *occupied by him/available to him* was clean," the boldfaced phrase appears inessential, as the space within John's house was of course his to use. Still, it is correct even in company with "any."


It is up to the writer to decide whether or not it is correct. If he occupied all the house, then it would appear to be unnecessary. If he did not, then perhaps it is needed. If the writer included this in the sentence, then we, as readers, can assume it was needed.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But consider the variant " . . . leaving her scarcely any sea-room in which she was manoeuvring." It suffers the same problem of contradiction as " . . . leaving her scarcely any sea-room in which she floated" and is thus incorrect.


I agree, but that is not the example I gave.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> It is up to the writer to decide whether or not it is correct. If he occupied all the house, then it would appear to be unnecessary. If he did not, then perhaps it is needed. If the writer included this in the sentence, then we, as readers, can assume it was needed.



In "Scarcely any space *available to him* was clean," the boldfaced phrase is unnecessary for the reason given in post #40, but the sentence is still correct.



Uncle Jack said:


> I agree, but that is not the example I gave.




But the difference in grammaticality needs to be explained. It's hard to see how the difference between "in which she was manoeuvring"  and "in which to manoeuvre" is tied to whether the writer thinks the description is necessary or not. Yet we can tell only the latter is correct without having to read the writer's mind.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> In "Scarcely any space *available to him* was clean," the boldfaced phrase is unnecessary for the reason given in post #40


If it is unnecessary, then it is wrong. However there is nothing intrinsic to the sentence to say that it is unnecessary.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But the difference in grammaticality needs to be explained.


No. This is not about grammar but about meaning.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> If it is unnecessary, then it is wrong. However there is nothing intrinsic to the sentence to say that it is unnecessary.



Redundancy is a matter of style, not correctness.



Uncle Jack said:


> No. This is not about grammar but about meaning.



Right, that's why I say the core of the issue is contradiction. It's an aspect of meaning, but it has nothing to do with the writer's mind. Otherwise, how would you explain why the infinitival version works but the indicative version doesn't?


----------



## se16teddy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You could refer to the following passage composed in Mary Shelley's time:
> _As there are scarcely any occupations which_ form a diversion to the monotonous uniformity of the household life, or which could make use of these contrasts, they break out on subjects relating to minor details, such as warmth of rooms
> The United States Democratic Review


I am sorry: in #29 I meant _There may be cases where a defining relative clause does not mandate “the” *with a singular noun:* I am not sure._


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

se16teddy said:


> I am sorry: in #29 I meant _There may be cases where a defining relative clause does not mandate “the” *with a singular noun:* I am not sure._



You could search for "Scarcely any person who" in Google Books to find instances of this usage in historical documents.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Right, that's why I say the core of the issue is contradiction. It's an aspect of meaning, but it has nothing to do with the writer's mind. Otherwise, how would you explain why the infinitival version works but the indicative version doesn't?


"In which to manoeuvre" describes the purpose of the sea-room. "In which she was manoeuvring" describes the extent of the sea-room. There is a difference.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> "In which to manoeuvre" describes the purpose of the sea-room. "In which she was manoeuvring" describes the extent of the sea-room. There is a difference.



The distinction fits in nicely with the account based on factual contradiction; the sea room intended for the ship to manoeuvre in is compatible with the fact of being frozen. No contradiction arises here. There's scarcely any need to send for a telepathist.


----------

