Could u please help me to check this sentence below? I found this sentence in Wikipedia English, but I think there's something wrong with it?
Ok, here's the sentence. "The British Ministry of Food refined the rationing process in the early 1940s to ensure the population did not starve when food imports were severely restricted and local production limited due to the large number of men fighting the war."
Local production limited due to the large number of men fighting the war?
1) limited due to... Is this participle worked as an attributive?
2) due to the large number of men fighting the war. Here "of men fighting the war" fighting" is used as gerund and "men" as its logical subject.
Am I right there?
- Anonymous4 years agoFavorite Answer
Limited due to is a reduced adjective clause. The full version would be "production WHICH was limited due to... So yes, it is now a past participle functioning as an adjective, modifying "production".
"Fighting the war" is also a reduced adjective clause- 'men WHO were fighting the war." In this case it's the present participle functioning as an adjective, not a noun, so it's not a gerund.
There's nothing wrong with the sentence, except that "due to" is cliched and frowned on stylistically.
- quatt47Lv 74 years ago
During the early part of the 2nd World War Britain was fighting alone against the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. Food and materials were being bought from the USA on what was known as 'Lend-lease' which continued until the USA joined us in 1940 after Pearl Harbour. Up until then, they were bleeding us dry. naturally as most men of eligible age were fighting the war production of food and the management of farms fell to women so production of crops was severely affected.
As far as the grammar is concerned I would add a comma after 'restricted' and 'limited'. Any verb that describes an action is a gerund so, in this case, 'fighting' could be seen as one. An attributive clause is one where it qualifies or modifies the word it precedes and expressing an attribute. I don't think 'limited due to' is one as there should be a comma after limited'
- Anonymous4 years ago
This is a perfectly normal sentence. Don't throw advanced grammatical terms around if you can't understand simple concepts like "this was limited due to that" or "people doing something."
- Anonymous4 years ago
I see nothing wrong at all with this. Perhaps the asker is looking for something thats not there ? What they say is true. Imports were limited because of the U Boat menace. I dont think lack of men was a huge problem as many women took over and farming was a reserved occupation (men did not need to go in army as their job was important)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Snarky91Lv 54 years ago
The sentence makes sense. The writing style is clipped, but structurally the sentence is solid.
It manages to rehash the causative circumstances, buttressing the main topic. At the same time, those factors are not elaborated excessively to overshadow the brief description of food rationing system(s).
Food imports severely restricted.
Local food production is limited.
Local production suffers shortages because not enough people are available to assist in view of displaced workers fighting at war.
Rationing is the main topic by force of necessity. The war indirectly causes it, but the war cannot be explained in some small sample from the myriad effects it produces.
1. major war
2a. lack of imports 2b. lack of local food production
3b/4. special rationing system
... the overview jumps into the topic and lists principal causative factors simply and summarily without getting entangled.
- BazzaLv 74 years ago
I would just add a comma:
...when food imports were severely restricted and local production limited, due to the large number of men fighting the war."
I too hate 'due to' and 'owing to'.