1. ohmyrichard
    Offline

    ohmyrichard Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    9

    who for whoever?

    Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by ohmyrichard, Nov 6, 2010.

    Dear teachers,
    Yesterday a teacher from another department of my college asked me on the school bus two questions about the following sentences taken from a textbook on tourism:

    Most other suppliers of travel products, e.g. hotels, cruise lines, rental car companies, tour operators, don't have any requirements at all for who they will recognize as a travel agency. For example, CLIA, the Cruise Line International Association, will basically allow anyone with a business licence and who pays a joining fee then sell cruises for their member cruise lines.

    His first question was about "don't have any requirements at all for who they will recognize as a travel agency". He did not know what "for who they will recognize as a travel agency" actually means. To tell you the truth, I also found it very difficult to understand. I inferred that "don't have any requirements at all for who they will recognize as a travel agency" is equal in meaning to "don't have any requirements at all for whoever they will recognize as a travel agency." But as we Chinese do not speak this way, I was and am not sure of my inference. Does this sentence mean that "Most other suppliers of travel products, don't have any requirements at all for anyone" or " Most other suppliers of travel products don't have any requirements at all for a travel agency. " ?

    His second question was about the latter sentence in the above quote: For example, CLIA, the Cruise Line International Association, will basically allow anyone with a business licence and who pays a joining fee then sell cruises for their member cruise lines.

    He asked about the relationship between the different parts of the sentence. But I think the confusion about the relationship between the different parts in this sentence is caused the misprint of "then". In my opinion, it should have been "to" instead, for we say "allow somebody/ something to do something", rather than "allow somebody/something do something".

    Please help me and my fellow teacher out of this trouble.
    Thanks.
    Richard
     
  2. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    yes, it should have been 'to'...

    and in re the first question, it seems to mean that the 'other suppliers' will recognize anyone who acts as one, as being a 'travel agency' whether or not they have any official status as one [i.e., are licensed]...
     
  3. ohmyrichard
    Offline

    ohmyrichard Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    9
    Thanks, maia.
    How about the "who or whoever" issue? It is rather difficult for me to understand "have any requirements for" followed by another clause led by "who". If it is a subordinate clause led by "whoever", then we can take that whoever-clause as something like a noun phrase. What is your understanding of this issue.
    Thanks.
    Richard
     
  4. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,984
    Likes Received:
    5,502
    The "whoever" version of this sentence is more confusing, to me, than the "who" version. Shouldn't it be whom? I've always been weak on the who/whom thing, so I'm curious now as to whether the following three sentences are correct:

    A restaurant can serve whoever they want.
    Restaurants normally have no requirements for whom they will serve.
    Who should the restaurant serve?

    But the "whom" wouldn't make me happy with the original example. First, using any variant of "who" for an organization rather than a person feels faintly wrong to me, and second, "don't have any requirements for" feels awkward - I don't like it in my own sentence either. I would rewrite the paragraph to:

    "Most other suppliers of travel products, e.g. hotels, cruise lines, rental car companies, and tour operators, will work with any organization that calls itself a travel agency, without imposing any requirements at all. For example, CLIA, the Cruise Line International Association, will recognize any organization with a business licence that pays a joining fee, and will then allow that organization to sell cruises for their member cruise lines."

    ChickenFreak
     
  5. ohmyrichard
    Offline

    ohmyrichard Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    9
    Your understanding makes good sense. Thanks.
     
  6. digitig
    Offline

    digitig Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,502
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Orpington, Bromley, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Yes, the original sentence was horrid, and it's no wonder it caused confusion. Your rewritten version is much better. For what it's worth, I think the whole "requirements for whom" construction is best avoided, so I don't like your "Restaurants normally have no requirements for whom they will serve" either. I'd go for "Restaurants normally place no restrictions on whom they will serve." Or even "Restaurants will usually serve anybody."
     
  7. madhoca
    Offline

    madhoca Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    the shadow of the velvet fortress
    I would edit it:

    Most other suppliers of travel products, e.g. hotels, cruise lines, rental car companies AND tour operators, do NOT have any requirements at all for THOSE WHOM they will recognize as a travel agency. For example, CLIA, the Cruise Line International Association, will basically allow anyone WHO HAS a business licence and pays a joining fee TO then sell cruises for their member cruise lines.

    You are right about the 'allow...to'.

    The bit reading: 'anyone WITH a business licence and WHO PAYS a joining fee...' lacks unity--'anyone WHO HAS...and PAYS...' has more cohesian.
     
  8. ohmyrichard
    Offline

    ohmyrichard Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    9
    GREAT explanation. I dimly sensed the problem with "anyone with... and who pays ..." but did not think deeply about it.
    A big THANKS to you!!!
    Richard
     
  9. digitig
    Offline

    digitig Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,502
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Orpington, Bromley, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    It isn't actually wrong, though. It's just a question of style.
     
  10. madhoca
    Offline

    madhoca Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    the shadow of the velvet fortress
    You're welcome, Richard.
     
  11. ohmyrichard
    Offline

    ohmyrichard Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    9
    Thanks again. You've helped me to understand every aspect of this issue.
     

Share This Page