Is there a "get" neglected?

coconutpalm

Senior Member
Chinese,China
Some experts maintaining that both domestic and foreign long-term problems get neglected in the rush of reelection as well as too many pressures caused by it, favor a six-year term of office.

This sentence emerged in my translation class, and it aroused a tumultuous debate. A boy said a "get" is neglected before "caused", as in "John must have been playing football and Mary (must have been) doing her homework."

However, in my opinion, the problem lies in misuse of "as well as" structure: a clause sentence is not compatible with a phrase. By simply saying "... reelection and too many pressures are caused by it" might be better.

Could you please give me your opinions? Thanks in advance!
 
  • tepatria

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    We would not use the "get caused" structure. Things are caused or may be caused, but not get caused. There should be a comma before maintaining, but the sentence is too long and rather difficult to understand. It would be better English if it were two sentences.
     

    Trinibeens

    Senior Member
    NYC
    U.S. English
    Some experts maintaining that both domestic and foreign long-term problems get neglected in the rush of reelection as well as too many pressures caused by it, favor a six-year term of office.
    ...
    Could you please give me your opinions? Thanks in advance!
    I don't believe a 'get' was neglected. What was neglected was the use of commas to separate phrases--my suggestion:

    "Some experts, maintaining that both domestic and foreign long-term problems get neglected in the rush of reelection, as well as too many pressures caused by it, favor a six-year term of office."

    In my opinion, it's not a well-constructed sentence. I feel that whoever wrote it is not presenting the different thoughts clearly. The phrase "as well as too many pressures caused by it", is particularly cumbersome. The phrase forces the reader to question what the "it" is referring to--neglect of long-term problems? Rush of reelection? Six-year term of office?

    KLUNKY, KLUNKY, KLUNKY!

    Trinibeens
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    I don't believe a 'get' was neglected. What was neglected was the use of commas to separate phrases--my suggestion:

    "Some experts, maintaining that both domestic and foreign long-term problems get neglected in the rush of reelection, and that too many pressures are caused by it, favor a six-year term of office."
    I agree with your analysis that the main problem is "as well as". I think Trinibeen's punctuation is an improvement. Above is Trinibeen's version with your alternate wording. I have inserted a second "that", because I think this makes it easier to follow.

    "... experts, maintaing that .... problems get neglected ... and that too many pressures are caused by it, favor ....."

    I really don't know whether the reference of "it" is still difficult to identify in this version.

    As a stylistic (rather than grammatical) choice, I would prefer "are neglected" in this instance. I don't think that "get" adds to the meaning here, and (to my mind) makes the sentence flow less well.
     

    coconutpalm

    Senior Member
    Chinese,China
    Thanks, Cagey!
    Your explanation makes it more clearly, and I think my following task would be to find more about "as well as".
    Grammar has been my weak point ever since I started English.

    Thank you all for your help! I'm really really grateful!
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top