'They have a healthy diet, with a lot of vegetables and not much meat or fish.'

eagerLearner2017

Banned
Live in Iran, From Afghanistan(Dari)
Hi everybody,

'They have a healthy diet, with a lot of vegetables and not much meat or fish.'

Does [with] above mean [which have]?
I think in example above, 'not' used to express contrast by leaving out the verb . but here what the verb is?

Can we revised the original sentence as the following?

'They have a healthy diet, which has a lot of vegetables and [the diet does ] not have much meat or fish.'
 
Last edited:
  • Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    I don't know why you want to revise it to make longer clauses with a verb, when the prepositional phrase describing the diet is fine. I can see the apparent problem with '... and not much meat or fish'. It does work as ' ... and (with) not much meat or fish' but maybe it's not the best way of expressing the idea.
    This could be better rephrased as ' ... and (with) very little meat or fish'. Or, 'without' could be used as a contrast balance to 'with'.
    ' ... with plenty of fruit and vegetables, but (with) very little meat or fish.'
    ' ..., but without much meat or fish.'


    I can see no reason for using relative clauses, unless it's a learning exercise.
     

    eagerLearner2017

    Banned
    Live in Iran, From Afghanistan(Dari)
    Thanks all for your informative information.
    No I don't want to revise it. I just wanted to be sure if 'with' can be substituted for 'which has/have' or not. I also wanted to find out what the origin of 'not' is, and which 'verb' referred back to 'not'.
     

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    You can't go around substituting "with" for "which has" or "which have" anywhere, but in this sentence, you can substitute "which has" although it sounds less natural.

    'They have a healthy diet, which has a lot of vegetables and hasn't much meat or fish.' is acceptable.
    'They have a healthy diet, which has a lot of vegetables and not much meat or fish.' is also acceptable (slightly better to me).
    'They have a healthy diet, which has a lot of vegetables and does not have much meat or fish.' (from PaulQ) is also acceptable (equal to above).
    'They have a healthy diet, with a lot of vegetables and not much meat or fish.' (the original) is preferable.
    Another version made by me:
    'They have a healthy diet, which contains a lot of vegetables and not much meat or fish.'

    However, if you have a sentence that uses the "which has" with any parallel structure, the substitution of "with" will make it incorrect. Like this one from an ABC Online article:

    "Unlike a musical, which has a lot of set-up costs and can then run for a year and a half to cover the initial cost, an orchestra might spend two or three days in rehearsal and then do only two or three performances."

    If you changed "which has" to "with" you'd get "Unlike a musical, with a lot of set-up costs and can then run for a year and a half ..." See the problem?
     

    eagerLearner2017

    Banned
    Live in Iran, From Afghanistan(Dari)
    Great points Truffula. so many thanks. I really like this from as I have learned lot of great things since signed up. Thanks all for spending your precious time helping us here.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top