You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2009.

This one is an extremely common usage, and too often overlooked by editors too.

The liberal minimalist approach is exemplified by the Canadian political philosopher, Joseph Carens.

changed to

The liberal minimalist approach is exemplified by the Canadian political philosopher Joseph Carens.

If there is only one Canadian political philosopher to date, the apposition marked by comma is right. But there can’t be and there is not one. Delete the comma, fast, fast! This is a too common mistake by authors and one that sometimes could lead to an unintended different sense to a reader.

Advertisements

… the liberal communitarian is inconsistent. If we ought to focus on the community which holds the strongest moral value for the individual, why suppose this to be the nation state or even the nation?

changed to

… the liberal communitarian is inconsistent. If we ought to focus on the community as holding the strongest moral value for the individual, why suppose this to be the nation state or even the nation?

I do not prefer to leave “which” in non-restricted sense. But a closer look immediately reveals to us that the concern here is with the focus on a community when a community is being held as the entity to which an individual owes strongest moral duties [as opposed to humanity]. So there is a restriction (and so of course we cannot put a coma before “which”), but not on the community: hence replacing “which” with “that” would change the meaning altogether. “that” would lead one to think that we are talking of different types of communities and it is the community holding the strongest moral value we ought to focus upon and not other communities. But we want to say here any community but within the hypothesis that it holds the strongest moral value. In fact, that’s why the argument contained in the last phrase comes about: if we ought to focus on community in such and such a case, then why only nation state? Why not any? The hidden “any” in the first phrase comes out thus in the form of a question, which was all along self-evident, in the latter phrase.

Some regions were more vulnerable to state action than others. This was certainly the case for Georgia’s ethnic regions, which, at the collapse of the Soviet Union, lost a protector in Moscow.

changed to

Some regions were more vulnerable to state action than others. This was certainly the case for Georgia’s ethnic regions, which, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, lost a protector in Moscow.

Certainly, the loss of patronage from the USSR occurred “at” its disintegration. But the loss was not an independent event, not a coincidence, but caused due to the main event. And this loss was permanent, continuing till present history.