What X is to Y, that A is to B句型的分析

此前，我发了一贴http://ask.yygrammar.com/q-34716.html

曹老师给出了满意的解答。最近两个外籍人士也讨论了这个问题，最终结论和曹老师的观点一致。可谓英雄所见略同。

现转录如下：

【问】

What light is to the eye, that knowledge is to the mind. [from Henry Cowles : The Revelation of John (1871)]

My questions are as follows:

Is the word “that” is a determiner or a conjunction?
What does the word “that” refer to?
What is the predicative in the part “that knowledge is to the mind”?

【答】

Hi, Sunshine and Gustavo,

I agree in essence with your analysis, Gustavo, and would simply like to share how I parse the sentence. Initially the sentence looked wrong to me, but then I imagined hearing it spoken dramatically, with "that" emphasized, as in an old-fashioned sermon, and everything fell into place for me.

I understand "that" to be a pronoun, which does not necessarily contradict the idea that it is a determiner. Pronouns are categorized as determiners in some varieties of modern generative grammar. The important point, however, for me, is that "knowledge" is not the complement of "that" in the sentence.

I understand "that" to be a pronoun that refers to the free relative clause, "what light is to the eye." (Free relative clauses are noun phrases and can be referred to by pronouns.) The main clause then uses topicalization. Instead of the word order "Knowledge is that to the mind," we have "That(,) knowledge is to the mind.

Knowledge is [what light is to the eye / THAT] to the mind.
Knowledge is ___ to the mind what light is to the eye / THAT.
What light is to the eye / THAT, knowledge is ___ to the mind.
What light is to the eye, THAT knowledge is to the mind.

Normally, in modern speech, we'd use the second version, with the extraposed free relative clause and no "that": "Knowledge is to the mind what light is to the eye." The underlying word order -- "Knowledge is what light is to the eye to the mind" -- is too hard to process. Also natural is the third sentence without "that":

What light is to the eye, knowledge is to the mind.
David

=============================================

Yes, David. Your parsing is perfect.

Here I've found a similar example, taken from The Lives of the Saints, by Reverend Alban Butler:

- What food is to the body, that our thoughts and reflections are to the mind.

According to the text, this means that our thoughts and reflections are as nourishing for the mind as food is for the body. "what" and "that" refer to that nourishing property.

Gustavo

原贴链接：https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/topic/what-light-is-to-the-eye-that-knowledge-is-to-the-mind?reply=600580420735785874#600580420735785874

0 条评论
分类：难句分析

默认排序时间排序

其它 6 个回答

曹荣禄 1秒前

擅长：动词用法,句法问题

在以前的一个帖子中 http://ask.yygrammar.com/q-34695.html

钟老师和凡哥都认为 What X is to Y, that A is to B. 是错误的。要求原版例句证明有这种用法。

现在有英语原版的例句了。

凡哥英语 - 归师 1秒前

擅长：英语

春风兄的钻研精神值得佩服。可惜，浏览了“老外”讨论的原贴，我并没有看到“英文原著”中出现 What light is to the eye, that knowledge is to the mind.这个句子，原贴仅仅提到在某人写的某篇文章中出现过这个句，但并没有贴出原文，反而是回答问题的“老外”GUSTAVO贴出的原文中，出现了What light is to the eye, knowledge is to the mind.

所以，读帖还要认真全面点:))。我需要看到的是几处（不是一处）“国外原著”（不要用国内的文章或词典）的句子做参照。

刚才又看到您在我以前的帖子后面留言举了些例子。其实没必要四处留贴，一个地方留贴就够了。您找花了4天时间找了寥寥无几的2、3个例句（其中一两个还年代久远），这本身就证明这个句型的形式罕见。罕见的句型，说它错误可能太过片面(也从侧面证明在下的孤陋寡闻，真是很惭愧），但正因为罕见，说它错误也好，不妥也好，对我们英语的运用没有实质影响。实用出发，罕见的句型归于错误的句型，真的对于我们英语的使用有很大的影响吗（英语研究人员除外）？这四天的时间，您如果用来认真读几篇《经济学人》或者背一些常用句型，是不是更有意义？退一万步，这四天的时间，“穷洪荒之力”才找到2、3个例句，您的英文是不是因此而有实质的进步呢（不要误会，并没有所您英文水平不行）？

您在我帖子的留言有几天了，现在才回答，是因为最近我来论坛的频率不高。您说是因为您的“曲高寡和”和不接地气，我觉得您有误解，不是不接地气，而是没有必要。:))

mengxin Z 1秒前

RE: "钟老师则压根否定that"

是的

------------------------------------------------------------------------

grammar exchange（是语言网站）上答题的只是一两个人

WR（是语言论坛）上平时在线有4000人，别说“友情客串”的老外，光版主不下20人（目测有40人以上）。WR上对这个结构早已下结论：错的。

春风网友是WR的常客，想必这个结论也早已看到过。不必去“捞”一个某老外的解答，当然春风也可能的确没看到过WR的结论。如果知道，就不知用意如何了。

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

这里转帖的解答，没有太大的参考价值，看人家的用词便知：

imagined ；spoken dramatically；in an old-fashioned sermon

即：

第1是他想象；

第2是戏剧化的、口头的；

第3是古老的sermon

补充一点是，宗教文化与世俗文化有很大不同。

比如我们很多英汉词典都会有keep silence, 这个就是宗教化的用词

世俗文化，只会用keep silent. 现在也会认为keep silence 是错误用词

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

说到底，

什么语体配什么句子，什么水平学什么文章

个人要学英语“甲骨文”可以，但做施教者得提示人家，“嗨，这是甲骨文，而且还是残破的甲骨文”

搞这种东西，毫无意义，主要是能力不允许，何况还是错的。别良言刺耳。

Richard 1秒前

感谢题主的精彩提问，以及曹老师之前的解答。让我知道可以放心的使用下列句型。

Knowledge is [what light is to the eye / THAT] to the mind.
Knowledge is ___ to the mind what light is to the eye / THAT.（右偏置，没有that, 是常用的）
What light is to the eye / THAT, knowledge is ___ to the mind.（左偏置，没有that, 是常用的）
What light is to the eye, THAT knowledge is to the mind.

我在这里记录一下，我对这个问题的心路历程。之前看曹老师的这个解答，http://ask.yygrammar.com/q-34716.html。我理解为，What light is to the eye, that knowledge is to the mind. = Knowledge is [THAT] to the mind. 这里的that=左偏置结构中what(=the something which）中的the something。今天看了这个老外的分析，加深了我的理解，其实这里的what也可以理解成为the something+修饰成分（to the eye, light is the something）。但是最好的理解方式还是按照老外说的，Knowledge is [what light is to the eye / THAT] to the mind. 理由是Free relative clauses are noun phrases and can be referred to by pronouns.

zbr1016. 1秒前

下面这个"老外"，应该是研究过语法的，概念很清楚嘛

刺杀骑士团长 1秒前

What X is to Y能否当做比较状语从句呢？还是仅仅是比较状语

What X is to Y, that A is to B句型的分析

其它 6 个回答

What X is to Y能否当做比较状语从句呢？还是仅仅是比较状语

相似问题