grammatically correct?

ArtsyAmy · Jul 30, 2014

I'm not sure if the following sentence is grammatically correct. And even if it is, I'm wondering if there's a better way of saying it.

How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we want most? (I keep thinking "what" needs to be "that which," but that sounds icky in context.)

I'm considering these other options:
How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we most want? (switched most and want)
and
How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we want the most? (added the)

I used to have
How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we truly want? (Problem here is that it doesn't really mean what I want it to say--we can truly want lots of things, but I'm trying to express wanting one thing more than any other thing.)

Any thoughts? Thank you for your help.

Chase · Jul 30, 2014

ArtsyAmy said:
I'm not sure if the following sentence is grammatically correct. And even if it is, I'm wondering if there's a better way of saying it.

How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we want most?

1. Yes, it's grammatically correct.

2. Yes, there are probably better ways of saying it (hold onto your Levi's pockets while some folks drop by and tell you their better ways). However, depending on its context, your way is probably good, too.

guttersquid · Jul 30, 2014

ArtsyAmy said:
How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we want most?

Yep, it's correct.

Chase said:
(hold onto your Levi's pockets while some folks drop by and tell your their better ways)

And here I come.

You could shorten it without losing any subtle meaning.

How much would we risk for the possibility of getting what we want most?

You could shorten it even more, but the following has a subtle difference.

How much would we risk to get what we want most?

All in all, I think the original sentence is fine.

Kevin Nelson · Jul 31, 2014

I'd say all three versions in the original post are grammatically correct. I slightly prefer the first one.

Personally, I would change "the possibility" to "a chance." That just sounds stronger to me. You might also shorten the sentence as guttersquid has suggested, though depending on the context the longer version might fit better.

Bufty · Jul 31, 2014

Context will determine which version is used.

ArtsyAmy · Aug 1, 2014

Thanks for the help!
Amy

morriss003 · Aug 4, 2014

guttersquid said:
Yep, it's correct.

And here I come.

You could shorten it without losing any subtle meaning.

How much would we risk for the possibility of getting what we want most?

You could shorten it even more, but the following has a subtle difference.

How much would we risk to get what we want most?

All in all, I think the original sentence is fine.

The second makes the most sense. Keep it short.

blacbird · Aug 5, 2014

"Grammatically correct" is not synonymous with "stylistically desirable." A lot of the questions about "grammar" posted in this forum actually are questions about "style". You can write a thousand grammatically correct sentences in a row, and it won't equate to effective writing. Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to go browse in academic journals for a while.

caw

Jamesaritchie · Aug 5, 2014

What blacbird says is true. Writing can be grammatically perfect, and still suck dead dust bunnies. Writing can also be grammatically imperfect, and be wonderful prose.

Ken · Aug 6, 2014

ArtsyAmy said:
How much are we willing to risk for the possibility of getting what we want most?

You've got some unnecessary words in this one.

"Possibility," of failure or success, is implied in anything one tries to achieve. So no need to specify so. Reduced down to its bare bones the sentence reads:

How much will we risk for what we want most? (Possibility implied.)

Styles vary of course. Basically, this is how I'd write the sentence with some alteration depending on the context.

One thing you don't want to be is wordy, though, no matter what your style. Yours is a tad so.

May seem a bit off topic, but you'll find if you tend to other issues in a sentence and get it sorted that other issue pestering you will go away.

My 2 cents. No grammarian myself.

guttersquid · Aug 6, 2014

Ken said:
You've got some unnecessary words in this one.

"Possibility," of failure or success, is implied in anything one tries to achieve. So no need to specify so. Reduced down to its bare bones the sentence reads:

How much will we risk for what we want most? (Possibility implied.)

I disagree, Ken. There is a difference between taking a risk for something and taking a risk for the possibility of something. One ensures the possibility of a sure thing. The other ensures only a possible possibility of a sure thing. Consider:

Would you risk losing a thousand soldiers to storm a castle in order to free your king, who is imprisoned there?

Would you risk losing a thousand soldiers to storm a castle in order to free your king, who might or might not be imprisoned there?

***

Would you gamble your rent money, hoping to win enough money to buy a house?

Would you gamble your rent money, hoping to win a raffle ticket for a house giveaway?

Ken · Aug 6, 2014

Maybe so. Possibility of failure, along with possibility of success, still seems implied in any future aspiration, without its needing to be overtly stated. But again, I am no grammarian. You may be right; I, wrong. ps I hope they rescue the king. Sad situation there :-(

Jamesaritchie · Aug 6, 2014

Ken said:
You've got some unnecessary words in this one.

"Possibility," of failure or success, is implied in anything one tries to achieve. So no need to specify so. Reduced down to its bare bones the sentence reads:

How much will we risk for what we want most? (Possibility implied.)

Styles vary of course. Basically, this is how I'd write the sentence with some alteration depending on the context.

One thing you don't want to be is wordy, though, no matter what your style. Yours is a tad so.

May seem a bit off topic, but you'll find if you tend to other issues in a sentence and get it sorted that other issue pestering you will go away.

My 2 cents. No grammarian myself.

We write in a very different manner. First, possibility implied? I don't see it. Even if I did, I still wouldn't write it that way. Wordiness is a problem, but lack of enough words is at least as much a problem.

I see no wordiness in that sentence at all. Wordiness is not about how long something is, or how many words it uses, wordiness is about how it sounds, how well it reads. This reads well.

Ken · Aug 6, 2014

Wordiness to me is writing more than you need to.

E.g. Jane went to the store and then Jane went to the movies.
Abridged to: Jane went to the store; then the movies. Or something of the sort.

Styles vary of course. And redundancy or stating something that can be abridged doesn't necessarily need fixing. And like you say, lack of enough words can be problematic as well leaving readers wondering what's happening.

It seemed to me like possibility is implied. Hence my suggestion. Yeah. Mine was a bit anemic by contrast. I probably wouldn't write a sentence like that, either, though I'd more or less try for something like it. Without context it's impossible to offer anything concrete.

Anyway, I'm not insistent. Just offering my own perspective.

Captcha · Aug 7, 2014

I think it's really hard to say something is "wordy" based on one sentence. Wordiness, to me, comes from the larger context.

A sentence that seems overly complex on its own may fit really well into the rhythm of its paragraph in the original. I think we can discuss grammar based on one-sentence samples, but once we get into style, I think a larger chunk is needed.

grammatically correct?

ArtsyAmy

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.

Kevin Nelson

Aspiring to authorship since 1975

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

ArtsyAmy

morriss003

Lurking along

blacbird

Jamesaritchie

Ken

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.

Ken

Jamesaritchie

Ken

Captcha