1

It goes as follows in an un-manipulated text about websites serving as social networks:

They are sweepingly putting many users on the brink of addiction, if they are not already victims of it.

[To ask my question and to clarify, changes are made below :]

They [ = social networks] are sweepingly putting many users on the brink of addiction, if they [ = users inclined to addiction] are not already victims of it.

Considering that the if clause is set out to mean possibly, some users are addicted already, the question is:

Does they [ = users inclined to addiction] possibly put readers off the clarity of the whole text, since it sounds to refer to the subject They ( = social networks) rather than many users.How do you feel about this?

One second thing:

How would it sound if we leave out the second they? :

They are sweepingly putting many users on the brink of addiction, if not already victims of it.

hoping i have been clear enough, many many thanks.

Itsme
  • 454
  • 2
    I think you are quite right that this is very poor sentence design, and you have explained why pretty thoroughly and well. (I would add that "sweepingly" is an odd choice for the adverb here.) Your proposed emendation, leaving out the second "they," sounds OK but makes the original problem even worse, in terms of requiring us to reread before we can figure out it applies to the object not the subject of the main clause. A better fix might pick up on the idea of brink thus: "They are drawing many users to the brink of addiction and have pushed some over it." – Brian Donovan Jul 24 '14 at 12:48
  • Thank you, Brian. I loved your clean-cut suggestion; (drawing, push over) – Itsme Jul 24 '14 at 13:02
  • 1
    The antecedent of 'it' should perhaps be taken as 'the brink of extinction' here; I'd write 'They are irresponsibly putting many users on the brink of addiction (those who are not already there).' – Edwin Ashworth Jul 24 '14 at 13:09
  • Hadn't noticed that. (Oh my goodness. I'll be doomed in my IELTS exam if the evaluators are this particular!) – Itsme Jul 24 '14 at 13:37
  • phenry, this is not exactly addressing our topic here. But I learnt a lot from it. – Itsme Jul 24 '14 at 21:04
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth, I had taken it the same way (glad I wasn't just imagining it). I would perhaps alter it to say something like, "They are sweepingly putting many users on the brink of addiction, if they are not already there." 'There' would mean 'on the brink of addiction'. I would appreciate your take on this, please. –  Jul 25 '14 at 09:21
  • 1
    @Romulus Parthus: Fine. And an extended (spatial) metaphor! I'm not sure I'd use 'sweepingly' here; as I hinted above, I think that the 'cavalier' attitude of the social networks may be what is intended to be stressed. I may be wrong. Perhaps 'sweepingly putting' sounds incongruous. "They are sweeping many users to the brink of addiction, if they are not already there" may be better. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 25 '14 at 09:33
  • @Edwin; You know, in my mother tongue there is an idiom that might be best translated as: "to beat every one with the same stick"; that is to say, with no distinctions taken into account. Turning to our case here,by sweepingly I meant more or less,the same thing. I'd be grateful to know if it sits well in the sentence, seen in that regard. – Itsme Jul 25 '14 at 09:55
  • 1
    It just doesn't sound right (other native speakers might disagree). 'Sweeping' is often used for statements with the meaning you give. We'd probably use 'They are railroading many users to the brink of addiction ....' – Edwin Ashworth Jul 25 '14 at 16:56
  • @EdwinAshworth ; I'm learning lots of things from you. (also liked your profile) – Itsme Jul 25 '14 at 18:39

1 Answers1

0

Everything about this sentence is bad. :)

  • sweepingly is a distractingly weird adverb
  • the brink of addiction is a weird mixed metaphor. Addiction doesn't really have a brink. (Googling turns up thousands of hits, but they're low quality English as far as I can tell).
  • victims of [addiction] is another ungainly phrase. One is normally the victim of the actions of someone else - not one's own illness, foible, etc. It sounds like the phrase is really trying to say "victim of manipulative behaviour" or something, but getting tangled up.

and, of course the switch in referent for "it".

IMHO the whole sentence is already unclear and hard to parse, and it's hard to tell how much this particular flaw contributes to that.

A much clearer rephrasing would be:

They are pushing many users close to the brink of addiction, or beyond.

Steve Bennett
  • 1,706