Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories

[Suapplle]

hi,Ron,
I do not understand the difference between "in 1909 Selma became blablabla" and "Selma became in 1909 blablabla".
I am not a native speaker,I think their meaning is same,please clarify,thanks a lot!

[Suapplle]

"X and Y" is normally used to indicate two different things. (if you said "the first woman and the first Swedish writer", without the "also", that would normally imply 2 different people)

"X and also Y" is normally used to bestow two descriptions on the SAME person or thing (notice that both of these descriptions are meant to describe Selma Lagerlof).

Hi,Ron,can we use this difference as a split ？I mean this difference looks subtle to me.
"she is the first woman and the first Swedish writer"
and
"she is the first woman and also the first Swedish writer"
As to me,they express the same meaning.
Well,I guess that maybe "A and B",A and B are two unrelated things,in this context,"the first woman and the first Swedish writer"
Do not mean "the first woman Swedish writer",but mean "she is the first woman,and she is the first Swedish writer".
is this understanding right?please certify,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

"The first woman and the first Swedish writer" means that she is each of these things, separately.

For instance, my friend Alina is Korean. If she were elected president of the USA, she would be the first Asian and the first woman to be elected president. I.e., she would be the first Asian president, and she would be the first female president.

[Haibara]

Ron, sorry, I might be asking a silly question here, but I just can't figure it out.

A novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden,...

I think the word following "to" should be a noun or a gerund like "writing", since the correct idiom should be "turn away from A to B". Sincerely, I'm not questioning the OA.
It's just that I can't like the usage of "to write" here. If "to write..." is an infinitive indicating purpose, then it sounds to me the goal of "turn away from literary realism" is "to write romantic stories". It might be acceptable , but it doesn't sound as good as "turn away from literary realism to romantic stories..."

Please give a comment on my thinking.
Thanks very much.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, sorry, I might be asking a silly question here, but I just can't figure it out.

A novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden,...

I think the word following "to" should be a noun or a gerund like "writing", since the correct idiom should be "turn away from A to B". Sincerely, I'm not questioning the OA.

It's always amusing to see a statement of why a poster thinks the OA is wrong, followed immediately by "I'm not questioning the OA."
Do not question the OA.

Do not ask whether something else would be better than the OA. Instead, you should ask the opposite question: you should ask what's wrong with YOUR alternative.

Do not ask whether the OA could be "improved" by changing it to something else.

Do not ask whether the OA would become a wrong answer choice if some other choice were included.

Etc.

Don't do it.

[RonPurewal]

It's just that I can't like the usage of "to write" here. If "to write..." is an infinitive indicating purpose, then it sounds to me the goal of "turn away from literary realism" is "to write romantic stories". It might be acceptable , but it doesn't sound as good as "turn away from literary realism to romantic stories..."

Please give a comment on my thinking.
Thanks very much.

There are at least four responses here.

1/
"Away from X to Y" would be a redundant construction. If that's the intention, then just "from X to Y" is sufficient.
Same thing with "both X as well as Y" (redundant) and "both X and Y" (not redundant).

2/
She turned away from something to write romantic stories. In other words, when she "turned", the romantic stories did not yet exist!
So, "from X to romantic stories" doesn't make sense. "From X to romantic stories" implies that the romantic stories already existed so that she could "turn to" them.

3/
You wrote "sound good".
If that is a literal reference"”i.e., to the way the sentence sounds if someone says it aloud"”then that's a non-thing.
Written English ≠ spoken English.

4/
"To write xxxx" does, indeed, express the purpose of turning away from another school of thought.

[Haibara]

Ron, about the phrase "turn away from A to do B", I now understand the connotation. Thanks indeed!
Although, I don't quite understand what you mean (especially the "literal reference")in the following quote. Do you mean "Sth sounds good" can't be used in written English or its meaning varied from spoken English to written English?

3/
You wrote "sound good".
If that is a literal reference"”i.e., to the way the sentence sounds if someone says it aloud"”then that's a non-thing.

[RonPurewal]

Although, I don't quite understand what you mean (especially the "literal reference")in the following quote. Do you mean "Sth sounds good" can't be used in written English or its meaning varied from spoken English to written English?

What I mean is that, if you are thinking about how SC sentences literally SOUND"”i.e., if they are spoken aloud"”then it will be impossible for you to do well on SC.

Spoken English is a language. Written English is a different language.
(If they were the same, then every native speaker of English would also be an accomplished writer, and that's clearly not true.)

You need to be thinking in terms of the latter, not the former. Most constructions in written English"”including absolutely anything that needs a comma"”don't even exist in spoken English.

[Haibara]

oh，that's what you mean. I'll be careful about the difference between spoken English and written English.
Thank you so much, Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Yep, that's what I mean.

You're welcome.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I have a small question about the structure 'the first ..to do..'

I am wondering whether we can use passive voice in this structure.
I made the following sentence myself. Do you think it make sense?

eg. The Dragon Boat Day was the first festival to be celebrated in Putuo District in more than 1500 years.

OR eg. The Dragon Boat Day was the first festival that has been celebrated in Putuo District in more than 1500 years.

please help. thanks~

Both of these work, although the second only works if you are describing a current event. ("Has been" views things from the standpoint of the present.)

I.e., if it were 50 years later, and you were revisiting this festival from a historical perspective, then the second sentence wouldn't make sense; you'd have to substitute "had been" for "has been", to indicate the past point of view.

Also, you could just omit "to be" or "that has been" altogether: ... the first festival celebrated in the district...

[Tadashi]

Let's just put intended meaning aside and focus on the pure grammar rules.

Can I eliminate A simply because the option omitted a "who" between "who become the first woman" and "and was also the first Swedish writer" in the main clause?

eg. My friend Mike who is handsome and who have five children likes watching TV. [CORRECT]

My friend Mike who is handsome and have five children likes watching TV. [INCORRECT]

Please help

ARIGATO
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

Well, both of your examples are actually wrong, because "Mike" (singular) can't be the subject of "have" (plural).

If we replace the plural verb with a singular one as required, and add commas**, then both sentences are perfectly fine.

My friend Mike, who is handsome and who has five children, likes watching TV.

My friend Mike, who is handsome and has five children, likes watching TV.

Both correct.

The second "who" is technically unnecessary unless its absence somehow makes the sentence ambiguous.
When the two modifiers are REALLY LONG, though, it is often included for the sake of clarity.

From a style standpoint, the second of these sentences"”the one without the second "who""”is better, since it is more compact with no loss of precision.
On the GMAT, though, style issues are not tested, so either of these sentences would do.

--

The other error in these sentences lies in their contention that a father of 5 has time to watch television. But I suppose that's why you want to set the meaning aside.
(:

[RonPurewal]

**Forgot the footnote.

This sentence would probably take commas in most reasonable contexts.
The "modifiers with commas vs. modifiers without commas" distinction is scrupulously avoided by GMAC, though, so there's no reason to discuss it on this forum.

Even without the commas, both sentences are acceptable.

[Tadashi]

I am totally confused now.
examples from Manhattan SC Book.

Wrong: I want to retire to a place WHERE I can relax AND I pay low taxes.
Right: I want to retire to a place WHERE I can relax AND WHERE I pav low taxes.


why the first sentence is wrong then?

Please explain further.
ARIGATO.
Tadashi.