Let me suggest as supplementary reading, Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities.
~ by Servetus on August 11, 2016.
Posted in Richard Armitage Tags: David Willetts, facebook, richard armitage
Is “blood and soil” actually a well-known expression in English? ‘Blut und Boden’, literally, so I am wondering what the context of this quote is. As usual, that is the problem with snazzy quotes – hard to tell where he is going with this, when all we see are 4 lines from a book. Sounds good at face value, but I’d like to know more!
Guylty said this on August 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Reply
That was exactly what I said to him, Guylty🙂 Maybe he wants to encourage us to examine the book further, but I wondered if the quote was really in a different context than most seemed to be assuming (shrug🙂
SHeRA said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:05 pm | Reply
it was decades ago, but not anymore. Benedict Anderson’s point was that no nationalism is organic. They are all “imagined communities.” Laying aside whether nationalism and patriotism are the same thing.
Servetus said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Reply
The relative ‘which’ relates to…?
‘Institutions’ as I read the excerpt and not to ‘country’. I could be wrong, though.
Mermaid said this on August 11, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Reply
institutions. This confusion comes from the practice that in UK English that and which are interchangeable.
Servetus said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:24 pm | Reply
Diagramming that sentence in my head, I also read “which” referring to “institutions” as well, not “country”. But I could be wrong, also.
Kathy Jones said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:37 pm | Reply
“and” makes “that” and “which” formally equivalent here. You’re allowed to do this in the UK.
Servetus said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:46 pm | Reply
Thanks for the additional reference, Serv🙂
SHeRA said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Reply
Servetus said this on August 11, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Reply
Please remember I’m a non-native English speaker in the following.
I’ve now been in contact with a grammarian, a colleague of mine.
The first relative ‘that’ grammatically introduces a defining relative clause (i.e. no comma), and it defines ‘a celebration of the institutions’ – the key word here is ‘institutions’. As Servetus so rightly explains ‘that’ can be used interchangeably with ‘who’, ‘whom’ and ‘which’, because this is a defining relative clause. The relative ‘that’ is not used in non-defining relative clauses in written language.
The second relative ‘which’ is far more tricky. Apparently, it defines the preceding clause (no comma), and as such it also defines ‘institutions’. However, it is more likely, but not so apparent, the ‘which’ defines the entire genitive construction, i.e. ‘a celebration of the institutions’. So, it’s a celebration of the institutions which should be open to everyone. Said colleague would have placed a comma before the ‘and’. However, it’s not obligatory.
Okay, but is the celebration of institutions closed to some? I wonder what is meant, re. the baby boomers.
It’s taken out of context, and maybe it needs further examination😉
Mermaid said this on August 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Reply
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Click on the image to see fan support and donate!
Like / Friend / Follow me on Facebook [click here]
Blog at WordPress.com.