Racial categories do not exist inherent(ly) to nature.

Shaant01

Senior Member
Canadian English
"Racial categories do not exist inherent(ly) to nature."

I just mean that racial categories are constructed rather than natural. The species is not itself divided by race.

My reasoning is that it requires the adverb because it modifies "exist," but the adjective seems more common in academic work.

What do you think?
 
  • cidertree

    Senior Member
    Béarla na hÉireann (Hiberno-English)
    I'd prefer "in" rather than "to".

    To me, it would read better as either of:

    Racial categories do not inherently exist in nature.
    Racial categories are not inherent in nature.


    I'd still question what exactly is meant by "categories".
     
    Last edited:

    The Newt

    Senior Member
    English - US
    [...]

    Racial categories do not inherently exist in nature.
    Racial categories are not inherent in nature.


    [...]
    Another option is "Racial categories do not exist inherently in nature." "Racial categories are not inherent in nature" strikes me as meaning something else, or at least as being ambiguous.
     

    pachanga7

    Senior Member
    English - US
    It sounds redundant to me. If they exist in nature, they are inherent. But if I was wanting to be a bit verbose for emphasis then I would put it in front of the noun:

    Race does not inherently exist in nature.
     

    Shaant01

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    Another option is "Racial categories do not exist inherently in nature." "Racial categories are not inherent in nature" strikes me as meaning something else, or at least as being ambiguous.

    I like this phraseology the most: "Racial cateogories do not exist inherently in nature." The construction as a verb is typically "inhere in" so it makes sense.
     

    Shaant01

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    It sounds redundant to me. If they exist in nature, they are inherent. But if I was wanting to be a bit verbose for emphasis then I would put it in front of the noun:

    Race does not inherently exist in nature.

    I agree that it is redundant and that it means nothing more than, "Racial cateogories do not exist in nature." But it is a matter of emphasis, as you say.
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    I know it may be slightly beside the original question, but I would probably just say "race" rather than "racial categories". I mean, doesn't "race" imply categorization by definition? No categories, no race.
     
    Top