how to understand this sentence “unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country…”? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)why is “their” the wrong usage in this sentence?Is 'so I did', and other like expressions, at the end of a sentence good English?I don't understand the usage of “either” in this sentenceHow is this sentence to be interpreted?How to formulate this sentence correctlywhat is the usage of 'so' in this sentence?What are mistakes in this sentence ? “We visited nothern areas of our country last summer.”How to correct this sentence?I don't understand why this sentence need the to +ingWhat is the grammatical name and function of this sentence

What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?

How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?

Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?

If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?

How do pianists reach extremely loud dynamics?

Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?

Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?

List *all* the tuples!

Is it true that "carbohydrates are of no use for the basal metabolic need"?

Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?

What does an IRS interview request entail when called in to verify expenses for a sole proprietor small business?

Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?

Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems

Abandoning the Ordinary World

Apollo command module space walk?

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

Coloring maths inside a tcolorbox

How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?

At the end of Thor: Ragnarok why don't the Asgardians turn and head for the Bifrost as per their original plan?

51k Euros annually for a family of 4 in Berlin: Is it enough?

Error "illegal generic type for instanceof" when using local classes

How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"

Using audio cues to encourage good posture

Seeking colloquialism for “just because”



how to understand this sentence “unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country…”?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)why is “their” the wrong usage in this sentence?Is 'so I did', and other like expressions, at the end of a sentence good English?I don't understand the usage of “either” in this sentenceHow is this sentence to be interpreted?How to formulate this sentence correctlywhat is the usage of 'so' in this sentence?What are mistakes in this sentence ? “We visited nothern areas of our country last summer.”How to correct this sentence?I don't understand why this sentence need the to +ingWhat is the grammatical name and function of this sentence



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








0















Here are two consecutive paragraphs from The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg:




The extensive range of what I would call “almost synonyms” became one
of the glories of the English language, giving it astonishing
precision and flexibility, allowing its speakers and writers over the
centuries to discover what seemed to be exactly the right word. Rather
than replace English, French was being brought into service to help
enrich and equip it for the role it was on its way to reassuming.

Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, unbelievably slow
in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with
the language it was relentlessly replenishing, began to take notice.​




What I don't understand is the second paragraph. I feel something has been ommitted in the part "unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing". Can you analyze the grammatical element of this sentence? Thank you.



If the context helps, here's the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.










share|improve this question
























  • Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

    – WendyG
    Mar 25 at 13:55











  • @WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 14:17











  • What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:00











  • @RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 15:40











  • Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:49

















0















Here are two consecutive paragraphs from The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg:




The extensive range of what I would call “almost synonyms” became one
of the glories of the English language, giving it astonishing
precision and flexibility, allowing its speakers and writers over the
centuries to discover what seemed to be exactly the right word. Rather
than replace English, French was being brought into service to help
enrich and equip it for the role it was on its way to reassuming.

Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, unbelievably slow
in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with
the language it was relentlessly replenishing, began to take notice.​




What I don't understand is the second paragraph. I feel something has been ommitted in the part "unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing". Can you analyze the grammatical element of this sentence? Thank you.



If the context helps, here's the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.










share|improve this question
























  • Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

    – WendyG
    Mar 25 at 13:55











  • @WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 14:17











  • What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:00











  • @RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 15:40











  • Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:49













0












0








0








Here are two consecutive paragraphs from The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg:




The extensive range of what I would call “almost synonyms” became one
of the glories of the English language, giving it astonishing
precision and flexibility, allowing its speakers and writers over the
centuries to discover what seemed to be exactly the right word. Rather
than replace English, French was being brought into service to help
enrich and equip it for the role it was on its way to reassuming.

Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, unbelievably slow
in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with
the language it was relentlessly replenishing, began to take notice.​




What I don't understand is the second paragraph. I feel something has been ommitted in the part "unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing". Can you analyze the grammatical element of this sentence? Thank you.



If the context helps, here's the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.










share|improve this question
















Here are two consecutive paragraphs from The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg:




The extensive range of what I would call “almost synonyms” became one
of the glories of the English language, giving it astonishing
precision and flexibility, allowing its speakers and writers over the
centuries to discover what seemed to be exactly the right word. Rather
than replace English, French was being brought into service to help
enrich and equip it for the role it was on its way to reassuming.

Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, unbelievably slow
in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with
the language it was relentlessly replenishing, began to take notice.​




What I don't understand is the second paragraph. I feel something has been ommitted in the part "unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing". Can you analyze the grammatical element of this sentence? Thank you.



If the context helps, here's the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.







grammaticality grammatical-structure omissibility






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 14:15







Xǔ Yuè

















asked Mar 25 at 7:09









Xǔ YuèXǔ Yuè

11




11












  • Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

    – WendyG
    Mar 25 at 13:55











  • @WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 14:17











  • What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:00











  • @RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 15:40











  • Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:49

















  • Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

    – WendyG
    Mar 25 at 13:55











  • @WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 14:17











  • What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:00











  • @RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

    – Xǔ Yuè
    Mar 25 at 15:40











  • Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

    – Rusty Core
    Mar 25 at 15:49
















Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

– WendyG
Mar 25 at 13:55





Can we have the next paragraph, it often helps.

– WendyG
Mar 25 at 13:55













@WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

– Xǔ Yuè
Mar 25 at 14:17





@WendyG Thanks! The second paragraph is actually the end of a section, but if it helps, I've edited the post to include a link to the whole page, which can be found in Google Book.

– Xǔ Yuè
Mar 25 at 14:17













What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

– Rusty Core
Mar 25 at 15:00





What exactly is not clear? The google books page does not show up for me. What I get from the paragraph is that the royal family was, apparently, a promoter of French language, yet for the long time could not realize usefulness and power of being able to use the language and spread its usage throughout the kingdom. But finally, they figured it out.

– Rusty Core
Mar 25 at 15:00













@RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

– Xǔ Yuè
Mar 25 at 15:40





@RustyCore Thanks! But what does the "it" as in "it was relentlessly replenishing" refer to? If you Google the whole paragraph, the link to the book will pop up.

– Xǔ Yuè
Mar 25 at 15:40













Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

– Rusty Core
Mar 25 at 15:49





Indeed, it sounds like the royal family was relentlessly replenishing the English language with French. This does not match that the royal family was slow to realize the spread of French. Something is not 100% right.

– Rusty Core
Mar 25 at 15:49










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














That the French royal family took notice is the import of the sentence. There are several phrases modifying the French Royal family. They were ruling the country with a language that was being replenished.



Pardon the lack of specifics but this is a simplification.
Even the French royal family, though very slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country with the language that was being relentlessly replenished, began to take notice.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    First, the basic context of this paragraph is in a chapter on the gradual introduction of French-derived words into Middle English by a Norman (French) aristocracy. So the royal family would be the French-speaking rulers of England from 1066 until they switched to learning English as a first language in the 15th century.



    The basic structure of the sentence is interrupted by a long parenthetical statement, a phrase or clause that glosses "the royal family." Without that long parenthetical, we would have:




    Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, began to take notice.




    "That great redoubt of French" is the noun phrase serving as subject, "began to take notice" is the predicate, and "the royal family" is another parenthetical statement (an appositive) grammatically describing "that great redoubt of French."



    The long segment describes a pertinent quality of the royal family. Grammatically, a parenthetical doesn't change the syntax of what's around it. However, they can be complex, and Bragg has used this one to describe how he thinks the royal family sits in relation to the English language of its subjects:




    the royal family, unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune




    So the royal family was slow to appreciate their good fortune. What was the source of this good fortune? The answer comes in two parts that are logically connected. The second part is trickier, so I spend more time explaining it:




    in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing,




    • They (the royal family) ruled the country they did (England). Not every country would blend its own language with French to create "astonishing precision and flexibility."



    • With the language it was relentlessly replenishing. First, it is slightly unclear what "with" goes with. Second, the most sensible correspondent to "it" is near the start of the sentence.



      • "With the language it was relentlessly replenishing" can modify ruling, so that the royal family ruled England with the language (French) it (England? English?) was relentlessly replenishing. I reject this reading because the action taken by the probable "it" wouldn't make sense: English didn't replenish French, but rather French vocabulary replenished English.


      • "With the language is was relentlessly replenishing" modifies "the country (they did rule," such that the country (England) has the language (English) that it (French, which the royal family is the great redoubt of) was relentlessly replenishing.


      • The second reading may be a stretch for reading "it," but note examples in the paragraphs above where "it" is left rather fuzzy: "that's the beauty of it" at the start of a previous paragraph has a general sense of "English" or the English embrace of French loan-words, or something like that. Since the author seems otherwise inclined to use "it" in suggestive ways dependent on context rather than syntactic placement, "French" can be the referent for "it."



    In short, the (Norman-descended, French-speaking) royal family in England was slow to appreciate that it ruled a country whose people would expand the expressive capacity of English by adapting the ruling family's French words into English while keeping the basic structure and vocabulary of English. Nonetheless, the royal family eventually noticed. Bragg may have in mind how the royal family became patrons of English authors (like Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate) and switched to speaking English as a first language.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

      – Xǔ Yuè
      Mar 26 at 6:02











    • Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

      – Xǔ Yuè
      Mar 26 at 6:09











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491187%2fhow-to-understand-this-sentence-unbelievably-slow-in-appreciating-their-good-fo%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    That the French royal family took notice is the import of the sentence. There are several phrases modifying the French Royal family. They were ruling the country with a language that was being replenished.



    Pardon the lack of specifics but this is a simplification.
    Even the French royal family, though very slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country with the language that was being relentlessly replenished, began to take notice.






    share|improve this answer



























      0














      That the French royal family took notice is the import of the sentence. There are several phrases modifying the French Royal family. They were ruling the country with a language that was being replenished.



      Pardon the lack of specifics but this is a simplification.
      Even the French royal family, though very slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country with the language that was being relentlessly replenished, began to take notice.






      share|improve this answer

























        0












        0








        0







        That the French royal family took notice is the import of the sentence. There are several phrases modifying the French Royal family. They were ruling the country with a language that was being replenished.



        Pardon the lack of specifics but this is a simplification.
        Even the French royal family, though very slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country with the language that was being relentlessly replenished, began to take notice.






        share|improve this answer













        That the French royal family took notice is the import of the sentence. There are several phrases modifying the French Royal family. They were ruling the country with a language that was being replenished.



        Pardon the lack of specifics but this is a simplification.
        Even the French royal family, though very slow in appreciating their good fortune in ruling the country with the language that was being relentlessly replenished, began to take notice.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 25 at 18:16









        ElliotElliot

        401




        401























            0














            First, the basic context of this paragraph is in a chapter on the gradual introduction of French-derived words into Middle English by a Norman (French) aristocracy. So the royal family would be the French-speaking rulers of England from 1066 until they switched to learning English as a first language in the 15th century.



            The basic structure of the sentence is interrupted by a long parenthetical statement, a phrase or clause that glosses "the royal family." Without that long parenthetical, we would have:




            Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, began to take notice.




            "That great redoubt of French" is the noun phrase serving as subject, "began to take notice" is the predicate, and "the royal family" is another parenthetical statement (an appositive) grammatically describing "that great redoubt of French."



            The long segment describes a pertinent quality of the royal family. Grammatically, a parenthetical doesn't change the syntax of what's around it. However, they can be complex, and Bragg has used this one to describe how he thinks the royal family sits in relation to the English language of its subjects:




            the royal family, unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune




            So the royal family was slow to appreciate their good fortune. What was the source of this good fortune? The answer comes in two parts that are logically connected. The second part is trickier, so I spend more time explaining it:




            in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing,




            • They (the royal family) ruled the country they did (England). Not every country would blend its own language with French to create "astonishing precision and flexibility."



            • With the language it was relentlessly replenishing. First, it is slightly unclear what "with" goes with. Second, the most sensible correspondent to "it" is near the start of the sentence.



              • "With the language it was relentlessly replenishing" can modify ruling, so that the royal family ruled England with the language (French) it (England? English?) was relentlessly replenishing. I reject this reading because the action taken by the probable "it" wouldn't make sense: English didn't replenish French, but rather French vocabulary replenished English.


              • "With the language is was relentlessly replenishing" modifies "the country (they did rule," such that the country (England) has the language (English) that it (French, which the royal family is the great redoubt of) was relentlessly replenishing.


              • The second reading may be a stretch for reading "it," but note examples in the paragraphs above where "it" is left rather fuzzy: "that's the beauty of it" at the start of a previous paragraph has a general sense of "English" or the English embrace of French loan-words, or something like that. Since the author seems otherwise inclined to use "it" in suggestive ways dependent on context rather than syntactic placement, "French" can be the referent for "it."



            In short, the (Norman-descended, French-speaking) royal family in England was slow to appreciate that it ruled a country whose people would expand the expressive capacity of English by adapting the ruling family's French words into English while keeping the basic structure and vocabulary of English. Nonetheless, the royal family eventually noticed. Bragg may have in mind how the royal family became patrons of English authors (like Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate) and switched to speaking English as a first language.






            share|improve this answer























            • Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:02











            • Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:09















            0














            First, the basic context of this paragraph is in a chapter on the gradual introduction of French-derived words into Middle English by a Norman (French) aristocracy. So the royal family would be the French-speaking rulers of England from 1066 until they switched to learning English as a first language in the 15th century.



            The basic structure of the sentence is interrupted by a long parenthetical statement, a phrase or clause that glosses "the royal family." Without that long parenthetical, we would have:




            Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, began to take notice.




            "That great redoubt of French" is the noun phrase serving as subject, "began to take notice" is the predicate, and "the royal family" is another parenthetical statement (an appositive) grammatically describing "that great redoubt of French."



            The long segment describes a pertinent quality of the royal family. Grammatically, a parenthetical doesn't change the syntax of what's around it. However, they can be complex, and Bragg has used this one to describe how he thinks the royal family sits in relation to the English language of its subjects:




            the royal family, unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune




            So the royal family was slow to appreciate their good fortune. What was the source of this good fortune? The answer comes in two parts that are logically connected. The second part is trickier, so I spend more time explaining it:




            in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing,




            • They (the royal family) ruled the country they did (England). Not every country would blend its own language with French to create "astonishing precision and flexibility."



            • With the language it was relentlessly replenishing. First, it is slightly unclear what "with" goes with. Second, the most sensible correspondent to "it" is near the start of the sentence.



              • "With the language it was relentlessly replenishing" can modify ruling, so that the royal family ruled England with the language (French) it (England? English?) was relentlessly replenishing. I reject this reading because the action taken by the probable "it" wouldn't make sense: English didn't replenish French, but rather French vocabulary replenished English.


              • "With the language is was relentlessly replenishing" modifies "the country (they did rule," such that the country (England) has the language (English) that it (French, which the royal family is the great redoubt of) was relentlessly replenishing.


              • The second reading may be a stretch for reading "it," but note examples in the paragraphs above where "it" is left rather fuzzy: "that's the beauty of it" at the start of a previous paragraph has a general sense of "English" or the English embrace of French loan-words, or something like that. Since the author seems otherwise inclined to use "it" in suggestive ways dependent on context rather than syntactic placement, "French" can be the referent for "it."



            In short, the (Norman-descended, French-speaking) royal family in England was slow to appreciate that it ruled a country whose people would expand the expressive capacity of English by adapting the ruling family's French words into English while keeping the basic structure and vocabulary of English. Nonetheless, the royal family eventually noticed. Bragg may have in mind how the royal family became patrons of English authors (like Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate) and switched to speaking English as a first language.






            share|improve this answer























            • Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:02











            • Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:09













            0












            0








            0







            First, the basic context of this paragraph is in a chapter on the gradual introduction of French-derived words into Middle English by a Norman (French) aristocracy. So the royal family would be the French-speaking rulers of England from 1066 until they switched to learning English as a first language in the 15th century.



            The basic structure of the sentence is interrupted by a long parenthetical statement, a phrase or clause that glosses "the royal family." Without that long parenthetical, we would have:




            Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, began to take notice.




            "That great redoubt of French" is the noun phrase serving as subject, "began to take notice" is the predicate, and "the royal family" is another parenthetical statement (an appositive) grammatically describing "that great redoubt of French."



            The long segment describes a pertinent quality of the royal family. Grammatically, a parenthetical doesn't change the syntax of what's around it. However, they can be complex, and Bragg has used this one to describe how he thinks the royal family sits in relation to the English language of its subjects:




            the royal family, unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune




            So the royal family was slow to appreciate their good fortune. What was the source of this good fortune? The answer comes in two parts that are logically connected. The second part is trickier, so I spend more time explaining it:




            in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing,




            • They (the royal family) ruled the country they did (England). Not every country would blend its own language with French to create "astonishing precision and flexibility."



            • With the language it was relentlessly replenishing. First, it is slightly unclear what "with" goes with. Second, the most sensible correspondent to "it" is near the start of the sentence.



              • "With the language it was relentlessly replenishing" can modify ruling, so that the royal family ruled England with the language (French) it (England? English?) was relentlessly replenishing. I reject this reading because the action taken by the probable "it" wouldn't make sense: English didn't replenish French, but rather French vocabulary replenished English.


              • "With the language is was relentlessly replenishing" modifies "the country (they did rule," such that the country (England) has the language (English) that it (French, which the royal family is the great redoubt of) was relentlessly replenishing.


              • The second reading may be a stretch for reading "it," but note examples in the paragraphs above where "it" is left rather fuzzy: "that's the beauty of it" at the start of a previous paragraph has a general sense of "English" or the English embrace of French loan-words, or something like that. Since the author seems otherwise inclined to use "it" in suggestive ways dependent on context rather than syntactic placement, "French" can be the referent for "it."



            In short, the (Norman-descended, French-speaking) royal family in England was slow to appreciate that it ruled a country whose people would expand the expressive capacity of English by adapting the ruling family's French words into English while keeping the basic structure and vocabulary of English. Nonetheless, the royal family eventually noticed. Bragg may have in mind how the royal family became patrons of English authors (like Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate) and switched to speaking English as a first language.






            share|improve this answer













            First, the basic context of this paragraph is in a chapter on the gradual introduction of French-derived words into Middle English by a Norman (French) aristocracy. So the royal family would be the French-speaking rulers of England from 1066 until they switched to learning English as a first language in the 15th century.



            The basic structure of the sentence is interrupted by a long parenthetical statement, a phrase or clause that glosses "the royal family." Without that long parenthetical, we would have:




            Even that great redoubt of French, the royal family, began to take notice.




            "That great redoubt of French" is the noun phrase serving as subject, "began to take notice" is the predicate, and "the royal family" is another parenthetical statement (an appositive) grammatically describing "that great redoubt of French."



            The long segment describes a pertinent quality of the royal family. Grammatically, a parenthetical doesn't change the syntax of what's around it. However, they can be complex, and Bragg has used this one to describe how he thinks the royal family sits in relation to the English language of its subjects:




            the royal family, unbelievably slow in appreciating their good fortune




            So the royal family was slow to appreciate their good fortune. What was the source of this good fortune? The answer comes in two parts that are logically connected. The second part is trickier, so I spend more time explaining it:




            in ruling the country they did with the language it was relentlessly replenishing,




            • They (the royal family) ruled the country they did (England). Not every country would blend its own language with French to create "astonishing precision and flexibility."



            • With the language it was relentlessly replenishing. First, it is slightly unclear what "with" goes with. Second, the most sensible correspondent to "it" is near the start of the sentence.



              • "With the language it was relentlessly replenishing" can modify ruling, so that the royal family ruled England with the language (French) it (England? English?) was relentlessly replenishing. I reject this reading because the action taken by the probable "it" wouldn't make sense: English didn't replenish French, but rather French vocabulary replenished English.


              • "With the language is was relentlessly replenishing" modifies "the country (they did rule," such that the country (England) has the language (English) that it (French, which the royal family is the great redoubt of) was relentlessly replenishing.


              • The second reading may be a stretch for reading "it," but note examples in the paragraphs above where "it" is left rather fuzzy: "that's the beauty of it" at the start of a previous paragraph has a general sense of "English" or the English embrace of French loan-words, or something like that. Since the author seems otherwise inclined to use "it" in suggestive ways dependent on context rather than syntactic placement, "French" can be the referent for "it."



            In short, the (Norman-descended, French-speaking) royal family in England was slow to appreciate that it ruled a country whose people would expand the expressive capacity of English by adapting the ruling family's French words into English while keeping the basic structure and vocabulary of English. Nonetheless, the royal family eventually noticed. Bragg may have in mind how the royal family became patrons of English authors (like Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate) and switched to speaking English as a first language.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Mar 25 at 19:40









            TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin

            7,5661430




            7,5661430












            • Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:02











            • Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:09

















            • Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:02











            • Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

              – Xǔ Yuè
              Mar 26 at 6:09
















            Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

            – Xǔ Yuè
            Mar 26 at 6:02





            Thank you for your detailed answer. However, I found the second reading is hard to accept. I agree that the second reading makes more sense. But if this reading is valid, why did the author put "they did" there, which seems redundant. Without "they did" interrupting the sentence, it would be easier to understand.

            – Xǔ Yuè
            Mar 26 at 6:02













            Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

            – Xǔ Yuè
            Mar 26 at 6:09





            Or can we just say this sentence is grammatically wrong?

            – Xǔ Yuè
            Mar 26 at 6:09

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491187%2fhow-to-understand-this-sentence-unbelievably-slow-in-appreciating-their-good-fo%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029