3

Q:In the state’s legislative analysis, they pointed out that Silicon Valley would become the richest per capita state in the U.S. And another part of California would become the poorest. What about the issue of income inequality this would create among states?

A:The issue is very interesting. For one thing, I’ve noticed that the people most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are the poorest regions, and in the current system, they are not happy, because it is not working for them. So if they had their own state, I believe all of those states would become wealthier. And I believe by managing their own state, they will become much more successful. A lot of those regions are rural, and they feel they’re being unduly influenced by the urban population.

I think the sentence in bold is wrong. I have two explanations ,they are :

  1. I 've noticed that the people most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are in the poorest regions......

2.I 've noticed that the people most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are the poorest regions'......

Are they right?

  • This seems strange to me too. The quote effectively says that "the people ... are regions". But in real-life speech, I wouldn't have noticed this. – CowperKettle Feb 25 '14 at 4:26
  • "...creating their own state or being a part of their own state are from the poorest regions,..."? – Maulik V Feb 25 '14 at 5:01
  • @MaulikV but it is quite weird. – user48070 Feb 25 '14 at 5:08
  • @user48070 why weird? Look at this I observe that the majority of the investors are from the richest regions (like Silicon Valley), and in the current system, they are happy. – Maulik V Feb 25 '14 at 5:10
  • 2
    It does seem like a word is missing, doesn't it? If you leave it the way it is, though, I suppose you could interpret it as metonymy. – snailcar Feb 25 '14 at 5:13
1

Is this a transcript of a verbal interview? Because I think the simplest explanation is that the person was constructing a long sentence on the fly, and they didn't quite remember how they'd started it. It's likely just a mistake.

0

This sentence from the same paragraph might help us understanding the whole thing.

A lot of those regions are rural, and they feel they’re being unduly influenced by the urban population.

Clearly, the speaker refers the regions as people living in that regions. Likewise...

I’ve noticed that the people most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are the poorest regions...

May be read like...

Those who are most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are the poorest regions [people living in these regions]...

Truly, it's metonymy.

0

I would say it is correct by itself, no modifications needed. I will try to explain why I think so a clearly as possible, but I am not sure it is a metonymy.

"I’ve noticed that the people most adamant / about creating their own state/ or being a part of their own state/ are the poorest regions,/ and in the current system/, they are not happy/, because it is not working for them. "

Try reading it with the breaks I inserted in it after. I presume, this question is related to the ongoing debate of splitting the state of California into six separate States with 'Silicon Valley' being an individual state.

According to the question , the surplus income of the Silicon Valley is helping to maintain a healthy average income per capita in the state of California, but if California is split, "Silicon Valley would become the richest per capita state in the U.S. And another part of California would become the poorest".

the sentence under question is resides in the answer the person provided in context to the question. the person says that he/she have noticed that the people from this so called "poorest state" (mentioned as "poorest regions") are the people most intention/adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own region , because the current system in place does not help them much. So these "poorest regions" (therefore addressing the people in the region) are eager to setup their own state with their own rules and regulations for governance in hopes to "become wealthier".

I dont think it is a metonymy, because here "poorest regions" is collective noun for all the poor people, similar to "the sick", "the aged", "the Ignorant" , "the poor".

When somebody says Silicon Valley, you immediately think of technology, when somebody says Holloywood, you think of the movie stars etc, they say "the press"/"the media", you think of the journalist and the hosts. These are metonymys, here something entirely different is used to represent something entirely different.

But in the case of "poorest regions" it literally means the poorest places, just like how "the sick,aged,ignorant" all mean literally the sick,aged and ignorant.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.