1

We usually say extend something to somebody but in the following sentence

The law created a group called ‘Socially and Educationally Backward Class’ and included Marathas as the sole group under the category, and extended 16% reservation outside the existing quotas for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and other tribes and backward classes.

extend something for somebody is used. Is it correct?

One more sentence in the same passage is

Thus, it says, an extraordinary situation has been created wherein the State had to treat them as a separate category.

When the entire sentence is in the present tense then why is had used here?

In the following sentence

Further, Marathas have been classified as the only member of the newly created ‘SEBC’.

When they have used plural verb then why is member used here? I think it should be members

5
  • Here's another example: I extended my fishing rod. Commented Jun 29, 2019 at 20:18
  • @JasonBassford I think you did not understand my question
    – user93387
    Commented Jun 30, 2019 at 19:06
  • On the contrary, I did. My example was meant to illustrate that we do not always say extend something for somebody. Commented Jun 30, 2019 at 20:39
  • "extended 16% reservation" sounds weird. I think it should be "extended a 16% reservation".
    – Stuart F
    Commented yesterday
  • It's also ambiguous without a knowledge of the law, because you can't tell whether "for Scheduled Castes and Tribes" modifies "reservation" or "existing quotas". The latter seems more likely but I'm not an expert on Indian law.
    – Stuart F
    Commented yesterday

3 Answers 3

0

We usually say extend something to somebody

extended 16% reservation outside the existing quotas for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and other tribes and backward classes.

"Scheduled Castes and Tribes" is not "somebody". "Scheduled Castes and Tribes" is a variegated diverse complex group. So, you can not simply, easily, and literally give something to somebody. The word "for" is more apt in this case. If we swapped in "to", the resulting sentence still makes sense but seems sub-optimal.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with "for". Consider "This gift is for Jill." You can use "for" when extending benefits to somebody.

When the entire sentence is in the present tense then why is had used here?

You can mix tenses in certain cases. Consider: "I am telling you now, in the present tense, that Jesus died (past tense) more than 2000 years ago."

Further, Marathas have been classified as the only member of the newly created ‘SEBC’.

It may be something like this:

"Germany has been a member of NATO since 1955."
"The Germans have been a member of NATO since 1955."

0

I do not want to comment on Indian English, which is a variant of English spoken by millions. Nuances of grammar or usage in Indian English may well escape me.

In formal American English, the passage is unclear, partly because the legal structure being discussed is unfamiliar to Americans, but also because the prose is awkward to an American eye. Here is my best guess at translating it into formal American English.

The law created a legal category, called “Socially and Educationally Backward Class,” that included only Marathas. That category was allocated a reservation of 16% that was in addition to the reservations already allocated to socially disfavored castes and tribes.

The passage may be perfectly good Indian English, but is very hard to interpret reliably by someone skilled in American English, at least someone not familiar with terms of art used in Indian law.

0

It's not terribly clear, but I think the given example isn't actually using "extend something for somebody". It's using "extend X outside Y" where Y is "the existing quotas for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and other tribes and backward classes".

You certainly can "extend something for somebody", though the meaning is slightly different from "extend something to somebody".

If you're increasing the benefits to a group who already gets something, you would use "extend X for Y". For instance (made up example): "Previously mothers received 2 weeks' maternity leave after the birth of a child. The new law extends maternity leave for mothers to 8 weeks."

If you're actually sticking something out toward someone, you would use "extend X to Y" ("He extended his hand to John.") Similarly, if it's a new recipient of benefits, you would "extend X to Y". For instance (made up example): "Previously only mothers received parental leave. The new law extends parental leave to fathers."

You must log in to answer this question.