3

From [Rodney Huddleston Geoffrey K Pullum. (2017). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Chapter 5. §17.2.1]

We have suggested that restrictions on the pairings of pronouns with antecedents have sufficient in common with those on pairings of articles or attributive adjectives and head noun in [1] for us to treat them as a matter of agreement. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the two types of agreement.

Because 'sufficient' is an adj, this usage(have + adj + PP ) really confuses me.

5
  • 1
    @ Mr. Wang Would this be helpful for you? "sufficient" in British English: ADJECTIVE....(those interpretations you obviously know, but it also has a noun meaning) NOUN "a sufficient quantity" (Collins English Dictionary)
    – Eugene
    Commented Mar 29 at 13:59
  • 1
    In English, the word sufficient can be both an adjective, and a noun. In the example it's a noun. The OED has this entry for the noun "A sufficent quantity or supply; sufficient means; enough". I can't share the link as it's behind a login, but here's the screenshot. So, you could paraphrase this as something like "[They] have enough in common . . . for us to treat them as . . . "
    – Billy Kerr
    Commented Mar 29 at 15:52
  • 1
    "Have enough in common" is the more usual phrase, but "sufficient" is a synonym of "enough" here. (You should state your source - it's possible it's written by a non-native speaker but they may want to sound scientific or just be bored of typing "enough".)
    – Stuart F
    Commented Mar 29 at 17:25
  • I have some thoughts and would love to give a full answer, but it's hard without knowing where this comes from. Could you list your source please? Commented Apr 8 at 2:57
  • 1
    @Friendly Racoon added it.
    – Mr. Wang
    Commented Apr 8 at 3:56

1 Answer 1

0

'Sufficient' is always contextual. It means enough, adequate, and so there has to be a stated purpose or condition. We'd expect that to be introduced by a preposition like "to" or "for". For example, "I have sufficient money to live on".

Just look for the preposition introducing a phrase in your text:

We have suggested that restrictions on the pairings of pronouns with antecedents have sufficient in common with those on pairings of articles or attributive adjectives and head noun in [1] for us to treat them as a matter of agreement. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the two types of agreement

So, for the restrictions mentioned to be treated as a matter of agreement, the condition is that they have sufficient in common with similar restrictions. That condition is met.

2
  • But you have "sufficient money" in your example, there is no such noun in 'have sufficient in common...'. Is the noun fused?
    – Mr. Wang
    Commented Apr 9 at 1:44
  • @Mr.Wang we can use "in common" as a noun phrase, essentially meaning "things in common". Especially when the context shows on what measures two things are being compared. In the same way we can say "that is enough".
    – Astralbee
    Commented Apr 9 at 6:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .