Sentence Stucture: ‘The verb can be defined; it can be used over or over’.
What is the structure of a clause between semicolons? What is the main reason why this type of existence exists? Is “that” followed by “in his work”, a noun clause introducer and semicolons are separating and simultaneously joining some nouns, referring to noun clauses?
The source of the text below is : https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/a_ch19. php
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e. labor is internal to a worker. , it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore will he not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
Thank you so much for your answers
and answers. I would definitely use them again.
It’s ideological claptrap with flaws, I think.
- Is there real claptrap from Karl Marx, from the man himself?
- I’m an English translator. I’d love some translations from German.
- In a way the author admits that he’s rearranged the thoughts in paraphrase.
All of these things lend themselves to confused and murky English. Notice, for instance, that we are given a “first”, but no following, enumerated points. Let’s look at the structure of the building blocks. We’re given some alleged facts, a couple of alleged “facts”. To define the factual circumstance, the word fact licenses the following relative clause. Here we have two such clauses —
- that labor is external to the worker
- that in work, several bad things obtain
The two dependent clauses are separated by a semicolon. With the exception of semicolons, a pair of independent clauses are separated and independent of each other without a conjunction.
We are a list of things that we would like a worker to do but we are not expected to do them. He
- does not affirms
- does not feel content
- does not develop freely.
The list elements are separated by commas. If the author wishes to insert a definitional aside after id est, and if he set off that aside with commas the article may not be seen as being true or false, then the clause “”makes it hard to separate the elements of the compound predicate of the second clause from the rest of the text?”
Note that the two facts are two a compound subject, and we’re expecting a plural verb. However, my mother has a predicate. What are two facts? In the following sentence,
the worker therefore only felt himself outside his work, and in his work felt outside himself.
What is in a dependent introductory clause (I need it) for some text? Is using “The facts are that…” a good enough paragraph to stand alone? Can you really say something without examining the original text and I mean my german isn’t up to it.
What will be minimal change?
he does not affirm himself but denies; does not feel content, but unhappy; does not develop his physical and mental energy, but mortifies his body and ruins his mind (mistakes alone).
I come to an explicit set of factual claim(s), and will provide a predicate. The evidence has been provided a predicate, parenthesized the aside, and explicitly conjoined the factual claims with and. I have preceded each contrasting element (after but? ), and used semicolons to separate a list that has internal punctuation. He also refers to “The First English Word”. Do you think this is a faithful copy of the original artwork?
Whoknows? I am not sure
or nervous about it. Nope. It probably doesn’t matter.
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e. what can your customers do with your company’s product? Does not belong to his essential being, that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
Noun phrase : the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e. job security, etc. (for example), it (labor) does not belong to his essential being;
therefore = because of that
http://www.merriam-webster.com.pdf What
is “work” in “…that in his work, thus…” = because
of labor in his work / he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
Suppose you know the example of worker, i.e a child. in the main clause in bold) and dependent clause in italic. “e” isn’t belonging to his essence ; that in therefore, he
does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his mental and physical energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
What makes a sentence grammatically true?
The
sentence can be made into two sentences without changing the words or their order in the sentences: (subjects are italic and verbs are bold)
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e. work in the factory, or whatever other stuff. It don’t belong to anybody’s essential being: his energy or subconscious consciousness.
Does the man in his work not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but anxious, is capable of no longer developing his mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
