익명 06:15

So vs such (pronominal role, not as intensifier)

So vs such (pronominal role, not as intensifier)

In the example below, to which word class do "so" and "such" belong?

A function is measurable if and only if so / such are its positive and negative parts.

Note that "so"/"such" are not intensifiers, but are in some pronominal role. The intended meaning is

A function is measurable if and only if its positive and negative parts are measurable.

One can argue that "such" refers to the adjective "measurable", rather than determines or qualifies any noun. Therefore, "such" must be a pronoun and not a determiner. In other languages pronouns can refer to nouns, adjectives and some other parts of speech. Can English pronouns refer to adjectives? Would it be more appropriate to class them as pronominal adjectives?

Another point of view comes from the syntactic analysis of the first clause "A function is measurable", in which "is measurable" is a verb phrase. Since "measurable" does not modify any noun directly, it is essentially in a role of an adverb. That is, "measurable" is a mode of "being", just like "quickly" is a mode of "doing". Consequently, "such"/"so" must be pronominal adverbs, because they refer to an adverb and modify the verb "are".

Are both points of view valid? Are there any mistakes in the analyses?


Background information on the sentence in question.

A quick internet search shows that this pattern is widespread in mathematical literature. I have a feeling that "so" is more popular, and "such" is often used by European foreign speakers.

The usage of "so" and "such" in a non-intensifier role has not been much discussed here. I found only one related question "so" or "such" to replace a preceding adjective, which discuss a slightly different setting. Therein, the accepted answer insists that "such" normally refers to a noun, but I believe that "such" may equally refer to an adjective (i.e. to some quality of a noun rather than a specific noun), similarly to "what". Am I mistaken?



Top Answer/Comment:

A function is measurable if and only if so / such are its positive and negative parts.

I won't be dogmatic and say that this grammatical layout will always be wrong. But here's why this particular sentence is wrong to me. Suppose we leave out "such/so". We then have:

A function is measurable if and only if [...] are its positive and negative parts.

Now ask what kind of primary term fits that space. Personally I would expect nouns rather than adjectives. When I first read your sentence I was expecting something like:

  • ...if and only if X and Y are its positive and negative parts.

  • ...if and only if speed and direction are its positive and negative parts.

I certainly wasn't expecting:

..if and only if measurable are its positive and negative parts.

If that's what you mean, you need to put the adjective as the complement:

..if and only if its positive and negative parts are measurable.

상단 광고의 [X] 버튼을 누르면 내용이 보입니다