Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Consider this sentence:
The Tudor monarchs also did much to attempt to unite the various areas of what is now the United Kingdom.
To me, it seems that the writer could have well said, "They attempted very much to unite..." or something like that. I mean, considering it literally, the sentence says this: They tried very much to try(=attempt) to unite... .
Now I wanted to see whether it's something common in English, or a matter of sloppy writing, or I haven't gotten what it meant at all.
BTW, I notice such constructions in English that are sort of twisting what is meant as: not infrequently.
It would be interesting to know when that sentence was written. It sounds a bit archaic in style to my ears. And I agree it could be written more "efficiently" using fewer words. Especially losing the "did much to" part. I'd tend to agree with you that it's "sloppy" writing. Especially if it's modern writing.
Your second question is much easier ... between the conditions of frequently and infrequently there's a "gray area" that is sometimes invoked by writers (or speakers) to somewhat soften the implications of their statement. Not infrequently seems to logically imply frequently, but it doesn't. For example, one might say: Not infrequently, police radar reports incorrect vehicle speeds.
All this means is that the reporting of incorrect speeds happens often enough that you can't call it infrequent. Nor could you call it frequent, because it isn't.
You'll see this type of construction not infrequently in English. Other examples: not often, not surprisingly, not completely.
'Did' is for actual doings like suppressing rebellions, repelling foreign invasions, etc.
They did all those deeds to attempt to unite the UK, which may not turn out to be successful, in other words uniting the UK may not become an actual deed, even if they did all the other actual deeds.
'attempt to unite' sounds ok.
'did much to attempt' is where the problem is: it sounds clunky.
This should fix it:The Tudor monarchs also did much in attempts to unite...
On not infrequently, there is a recent post by Grant mentioning how the negative is emphasized on purpose, so that it's not the same as frequently, as if the 2 negatives cancel out. The woman is not bad-looking- I love the word litotes, though I could never remember it.
Heimhenge said
It would be interesting to know when that sentence was written.
The book is published by Milan: Modern Languages. The date is 2002.
I noticed some inconsistency: I suppose that the American spelling of 'sepulchre' is 'sepulcher', as here, while typing, it is flagged too. In some part of the book, we have 'sepulchre', but in another 'organiZed'.
BTW, the book has two authors, one of whom is Fabio Malgaretti, which I assume as an Italian name.
The sentence in the original post seems perfectly fine, even if a bit bookish.
The Tudor monarchs also did much to attempt to unite the various areas of what is now the United Kingdom.
I don't like the construction "They attempted very much to unite…" The "very much" breaks apart the attempt and the thing attempted. But "They attempted many things to unite…" sounds OK to me.
I disagree with Heimhenge's objection to "did much to."
The Tudor monarchs also did much to attempt to unite the various areas of what is now the United Kingdom.
The Tudor monarchs also attempted to unite the various areas of what is now the United Kingdom.
These two have different meaning to me. Mostly the second loses the "did much" implication! And you can't leave out the "to attempt" part, because that would convey that they succeeded.
The Tudor monarchs also did much to unite the various areas of what is now the United Kingdom.
To convey both that a lot was done, but none of it was successful, you need a sentence that would not fair well in a US newspaper.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)