i have read a book (the god delusion) and saw some sentences with complex structures (to me is hard)
here is one of them
the other thing i can’t help remarking upon is the overweening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor, could have, any evidence.
i know the prep will put in the front of which in formal writing (i can’t use though)
e.g. the manner in which Tom behaved at the meeting was unacceptable.
= the manner was unacceptable+ Tom behaved in the manner at the meeting
(is that right?)
but the sentence i stated has 2 prep-wh, I don’t know how to analyse it…it;s hard for me to understand (i know the meaning in general, but want to learn how to write a good article/ sentence)
The other thing I can’t help remarking upon is the overweening confidence with which they assert minute details they cannot back up.
I hope that’s clearer to you.
It may sound more “formal” to place prepositions before nouns in writing, but I prefer to break that “rule” in many cases.
I really like “with” in front of “which” here. If I had written the original sentence, I would have placed “for” at the end. I think the current position makes the sentence more clumsy and confusing. Besides, prepositions at the end of sentences and clauses is very natural in English.
Where are you from?
*From where are you?
What are you looking at?
*At what are you looking?
the above sentence is found from the book, i just copied it to here coz i found it difficult to analyse this kind of sentence.
if for speaking, i will generally put in the end, but for writing (like a report) need to be prof and formal, so i m trying to learn how i should write it.
trying to learn from 2 sentences like the example i posted, and combine together with placing a correct preposition at the right place.
that’s y i hope someone can “cut” above sentence apart into 2-3 sentences (?) so i know where the original position for the prep.
Yopu sdaid you wanted to learn how to write a good sentence. Mordant has improved upon the original sentence beautifully, but if you want it to remain long-winded and rambling:
I can’t help remarking upon one other thing. The religious have an overweening confidence with which they assert unprovable minute details. They neither have, nor, could have, any evidence to support these details.
but because i don’t know how and when i should use prep in front of those wh-, that’s y i asked here…and hope can learn from the orinigal sentences…
so if i make a sentence like (use ur modified sentence as an example)
The other thing I can’t help remarking upon is the overweening confidence with which they assert minute details they cannot back up.
without prepositon
The other thing I can’t help remarking upon is the overweening confidence which they assert minute details they cannot back up. <–no more “with”, will the sentence be correct??
that is why i m asking…
for non native eng speakers, we won’t understand why does prep place in front of there…
what we learned first is like-- tom, who sit over there, is my best friend (without prep)
prep to non natives are kind of higher lvl gramma…
sentence above is an example i found, and ofcoz is in the right place. but if written by me, i won’t put any prep there… coz i DUNO there requires prep…
u know what i mean now?