Marconi’s conception of the radio

[redable]

hi,

I'm wondering whether "Marconi’s conception of the radio" is a sort of "double possessive"?

thanks~

[RonPurewal]

hi,

I'm wondering whether "Marconi’s conception of the radio" is a sort of "double possessive"?

thanks~

no, because 's and of are signaling completely different things.
the 's is signaling that it is marconi's idea, and not anybody else's idea.
the of is signaling that it is his idea of the radio (and not his idea of anything else).

--

to have a genuinely incorrect double possessive, both of the possessives need to be trying to fulfill exactly the same function in terms of meaning.
for instance,
tom is a friend of joe's
--> this is incorrect, since BOTH 's and of are trying to indicate the same thing (i.e., that tom is one of joe's friends, not anyone else's friend).

[vjsharma25]

Sorry to bump the question,
I am not clear why "that" is not referring to the "private conversation" here in option C,keeping aside logical thinking.

I could not understand the tim's explanation regarding this.

[danielpatinkin]

VJ,
So long as it does not cause significant confusion regarding the meaning of the sentence, the GMAT allows two noun modifiers to follow a noun, with both noun modifiers referring to the noun itself.

Therefore, in this answer choice

C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become...

both "for private conversation" (a prepositional phrase) and "that could substitute" (a subordinate clause) are noun modifiers that refer back to "tool.

Sometimes you are compelled to use this structure because there is no better way to arrange the sentence. For example, if we rewrote the choice as

"Marconi conceived of the radio as a private conversation tool that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become..."

the sentence becomes a bit awkward and the meaning becomes unclear; that is, what the heck is a "private conversation tool"?

I hope this helps!

- Dan P

[vjsharma25]

So "tool" is the subject of the sentence not the "radio" ?
I was thinking that "radio" is the subject ,though "tool" is referring to "radio" only.
Can we apply the technique of removing the middleman from his sentence and rephrase it better? I think NO,because in the answer choice(C) there is no phrase within the commas.
Am I right?

[dmitryknowsbest]

You're right that it's not easy to cut out a middleman here. We have to analyze the whole thing and see which parts are modifying which other parts.

The main subject of the sentence is Marconi. Let's start with a simple sentence and build up:

Marconi conceived of the radio.

Here, Marconi is the subject and radio is the object.

Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool.

Here, we have added an object complement. The portion "as a tool" describes how Marconi conceived of the radio.

Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation.

Now we have modified the object complement to add detail. What kind of tool was the radio supposed to be? A tool for private conversation.

Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone.

We have added a helping verb to the object complement. What could substitute for the telephone? "A tool for private conversation." Of course, since the tool in question is the radio, we could say that this also refers to the radio, but structurally it is tacked onto the part about the tool.

At this point, we can simplify the structure of the sentence down to "X conceived of Y as Z."
X=Marconi
Y=the radio
Z=a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone.

So after all that, perhaps you can see why a semicolon shows up. We already have a rather full sentence! To retain clarity, the author essentially begins a new sentence to express the actual fate of the radio. Although we might follow the meaning if the sentence went on with "but" (" . . . telephone, but it has become . . ."), the meaning of "it" at this point might be a bit unclear. By starting a new independent clause, we are removed from all the mucky modifiers and complements, and can return back to the direct object--radio.

[vjsharma25]

It is crystal clear now. Thanks Dmitry for the gr8 explanation!!

[ChrisB]

Hi,

Thanks, you're very welcome!

-Chris

[sidd.shah123]

IF we use semi-colon they have to be 2 independent clauses...

In option C =>
instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for
communicating with a large, public audience.

Can this stand by itself ? Is this an independent clause?

[jnelson0612]

IF we use semi-colon they have to be 2 independent clauses...

In option C =>
instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for
communicating with a large, public audience.

Can this stand by itself ? Is this an independent clause?

This clause can stand by itself because it has a noun and verb, "it" and "is".

[songxue1205]

In D, ...be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which... i think "which" should modify "sbustitute" or "telephone", am I right?

no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS BASED ONLY ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OFFICIAL PROBLEMS.

from what we've seen - if you have "which" following "noun1 + preposition + noun2", then "which" can refer to noun1 only if noun2 is grammatically ineligible. otherwise it automatically refers to noun2.
see here:
post31162.html#p31162[/quote]

sorry to bump,　Ron, I want to know that in choice C, the correct answer, "a tool for private conversation that could substitute for telephone...", the verb in sub-clause "that" is "could", both none1 "tool" and noun2 "conversation" are agree grammatically with the verb. So as what you have said, does the relative clause "that" "automatically" modifier noun2 "conversation"?? thx~

[vivek.kr.rai]

Answer is C.

Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become .....


"That" in the sentence above is a "Relative Pronoun" and it should touch radio.....It looks like it is referring to "conversation"....Could you please help why it is not incorrect...

[RonPurewal]

"That" in the sentence above is a "Relative Pronoun" and it should touch radio.....

not true; modifiers (and sometimes even other stuff) can intervene between a noun and "that".

consider e.g. #50 in the OG11/OG12 diagnostic test, on which there are 9 words between "that" and its antecedent ("way").

--

also, you have the wrong referent; the meaning of the sentence is that he thought of the radio as a *tool* that could do blah blah blah. therefore, the antecedent is "tool".

the prepositional phrase occurs between "tool" and "that" because there's nowhere else you could possibly put it.

[mokap25]

C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become

Hi - can someone answer how in choice C, the statement after colon can be an independent clause. Though the clause has a noun-'it' and verb- 'is'; will 'it' not be ambiguous? in a standalone sentence.

Thus I thought the clause after the semi-colon could not work as independent clause and something was wrong with the option.

[RonPurewal]

C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become

Hi - can someone answer how in choice C, the statement after colon can be an independent clause. Though the clause has a noun-'it' and verb- 'is'; will 'it' not be ambiguous? in a standalone sentence.

Thus I thought the clause after the semi-colon could not work as independent clause and something was wrong with the option.

whoa, it appears you're assuming that a pronoun can only refer to something in the same clause! that's very, very wrong -- imagine how tedious all writing would be if the writer were actually obligated to reuse specific nouns every time he or she began a new clause.

also:
the term "independent clause" is strictly a grammatical construct; it is not affected by meaning-based issues. for instance, if i actually write a standalone sentence with pronouns that mean nothing out of context ("he is with them."), or if i write a standalone sentence with nonsense words ("the krox fluged the grack."), then both of those are independent clauses as well.