an English question
By dufresne
@dufresne (137)
China
4 responses
@GADHISUNU (2162)
• India
4 Jun 09
The sentence: "Paul Bunyan is attributed with the creation of the Grand Canyon, Puget Sound, and Black hills" has the proper noun Paul Bunyan as its subject and the rest of the sentence "is...Black Hills as the predicate.
The sentence: "The creation of the Grand Canyon, Puget Soundand Black Hills is attributed to Paul Bunyan" would be a sentence with the same semantics, but the noun phrase "The creation of X ,Y and Z" as the subject. Noun phrase is a collection words that has a meaning but is short of a finite verb, and one which could function as a noun, meaning could take the place of a noun - i.e. be the subject of a sentence.
But then a distinction is brought about the two different forms by changing the preposition. In short by changing the preposition the position of Paul Bunyan is changed from subject to object. But the interesting thing to note is that in both cases the verb is in its passive form!
This is one more way of looking at this tranformation.
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
1 Jun 09
'attributed with' is correct in that sentence. You would have to change the word order so that the subject was 'the creation of the Grand Canyon ...' &c.
The 'Creation of the Grand Canyon [&c] is attributed to Paul Bunyan'. The first sentence is better, since it is more direct and, under the circumstances, the natural construction.
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
1 Jun 09
The sentence is, incidentally, not a bad example of 'weasel words' - a statement which appear to carry authority but, in fact does not. A careful reader should be asking "Who attributes the creation of [these natural features] to Paul Bunyan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
My statement that the first sentence is better is, perhaps, a matter of opinion but, since the subject of the passage is Paul Bunyan, not the natural features, it is more correct in the context of the passage to 'attribute PB with their creation' rather than the other way round.
'To attribute [something] to [someone or something]' is probably the favoured or more usual construction but if one wishes to speak about the owner of the attributes as the subject of the sentence, '[something or someone] is attributed with [something]' is correct.
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
2 Jun 09
with is better.it implies he made it,but it's not a definate.
"to" would be a bit out of place.
@PeacefulWmn9 (10420)
• United States
5 Jun 09
With is actually the correct usage the way the sentence stands. If it read: the creation of ________ is attributed TO Paul Bunyan, well that is when to would be correct usage. Actually, the word that is wrongly used is "attributed." Credited would be better.
