0

I edited this phrase:

the farther the negative from the lens, the more light needed to expose it properly and the longer the exposure

to read:

the farther the negative from the lens, the greater the amount of light needed to expose it properly and the longer the exposure

I am sure the former is not grammatical but I am having a hard time explaining why the edit is necessary. Can someone help?

tchrist
  • 134,759
Bismarck_Felix
  • 1
  • 2
    Well, first of all, why delete is? That's what causes the trouble. The farther the negative is from the lens, the more light is needed to expose it properly, and the longer the exposure is. Start with complete sentences. – John Lawler Sep 18 '14 at 16:41
  • The thing that troubles me about adding "is" is that then it sounds like "light is needed more" to expose the negative: "the farther the negative is from the lens, the more light is needed to expose it properly..." – Bismarck_Felix Sep 18 '14 at 16:45
  • 1
    Well, if more light is needed, then light is needed more, right? That's not the idiom, but you can read it that way if you like, and it means the same thing. – John Lawler Sep 18 '14 at 16:57
  • I don't think it is exactly the same thing, tho. One always needs light to make a photographic print, but when printing from a negative made using a longer camera lens, one needs MORE light (a greater amount). I am mostly interested in understanding the grammatical difference between "the more" and "the greater the amount" in this context. I know there is one, but I can't quite diagram it for myself. – Bismarck_Felix Sep 18 '14 at 17:04
  • @Bismarck_Felix, I don't see any semantic difference between "more light" and "greater amount of light". Do you feel there's a difference between "more water" and "a greater amount of water", or is light somehow special? – Dan Bron Sep 18 '14 at 17:06
  • If you want to make a disquisition on optics and geometry, don't try to do it in three reduced clauses. Go ahead. Spend a period. Make several sentences; they don't cost that much. – John Lawler Sep 18 '14 at 17:10
  • @DanBron: the distinction is between light is needed more and more light is needed, and indeed, the sentence can be read both ways. However, as an avid amateur photographer, I immediately read the sentence in the intended way. "Light is needed more" makes little sense in this context. I don't think many readers would be confused. – oerkelens Sep 18 '14 at 17:14
  • @JohnLawler: maybe he is trying to communicate the basics of photography over the good old telegraph. Sentences can be quite expensive in that case. I would advise against that practice though. Explain stop STOP. – oerkelens Sep 18 '14 at 17:16
  • 1
    @DanBron. Hmm. "The bigger the fire, the more water needed to quench it." That does seem better to me. Perhaps the problem is just that a misreading intrudes upon my mind, with "water" as subject of the verb "to need": the bigger the fire, the more water needed [desired, was compelled] to quench it"—and so an alarm is going off in my head...erroneously. – Bismarck_Felix Sep 18 '14 at 17:19
  • 1
    Interestingly, the meaning that you wish to avoid becomes the obvious one in the water example if is is included: “The bigger the fire, the more water is needed to quench it”. Here I immediately read it as “the more you need water to quench it” rather than “the more water you need to quench it”. This differs from the photography example where I immediately read it as “the more light you need to expose it properly”. (Incidentally, using you is unambiguous and more elegant than the greater amount of, if you ask me: “The farther the negative is from the lens, the more light you need…”.) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 18 '14 at 17:49
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Yes! Much better edit of the original; it completely eliminates the ambiguity that was bothering me and is less of an intervention in the text. – Bismarck_Felix Sep 18 '14 at 18:02

0 Answers0