took him through a course?

C

chobalsim

Banned
India-Hindi
Eliot earned his bachelor's degree in 1909, then earned a master's degree in English literature. His tutors included Irving Babbitt, who took him through a course in French literary criticism. Babbitt insisted on "standards" and "discipline"--attractive words and powerfully attractive concepts to Eliot's conservative mind.

Does the bold part mean that the tutor recommanded or advice Eliot to listen the course? "The tutor took Eliot through a course" is different from "The tutor gave a lecture and Eliot took the lesson," isn't it? (Althgouh the whole context itself doesn't tell the tutor gave the French literary criticism, my research shows he was a professor of French literature.)
 
    • It means he taught him. It certainly does not mean that he advised in favour of, nor recommended the course. After all it does say "His tutors included Irving Babbitt..." which states that he did teach him something.
     
    It's not a very elegant sentence, chobalsim, but it means he led him through the course, or put him through the course.

    I'd say "His tutors included Irving Babbitt, with whom he studied French literary criticism."

    [Yes - I know I said 'whom'. Did I ever promise to be consistent?!]
     
    Thank you, difficult cuss and winklepicker.

    Winklepicker, to me, "led[put] him through the course" is slightly different from "taught him the literaray criticism," isn't it? The expressions lead[put, take] him trough, seem to focus more active part of the tutor to make his student to listen to the course rather than teach which seems to be ...er...neutral(?). Am I right or wrong?
     
    chobalsim said:
    Thank you, difficult cuss and winklepicker.

    Winklepicker, to me, "led[put] him through the course" is slightly different from "taught him the literaray criticism," isn't it? The expressions lead[put, take] him trough, seem to focus more active part of the tutor to make his student to listen to the course rather than teach which seems to be ...er...neutral(?). Am I right or wrong?
    Click to expand...

    I think you're right. I said 'led' because the original is 'took'. 'Took' seems to imply leading. I think that's a fault in the original - and why I said it was inelegant. As difficult cuss succinctly says, the clear inference is that he taught him. But if you say, Irving Babbitt, who taught him French literary criticism there may be an implication that he knew nothing about the subject beforehand. This idea is not present in the original. Hence 'with whom he studied' - which is entirely neutral on that point.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top