Help me with "as" in a sentence
May 13, 2021 8:46 PM Subscribe
Let’s say a sentence is drafted as follows: “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as vs. those of the 1 percent.”
The writer thinks the “as” is needed for clarity. I think it is doesn’t belong, but I’m not sure how to explain that.
It seems like “as” would need something to go along with it, and the sentence is perfectly understood without the “as.”
Can you help me with the grammar to justify removal of the “as”?
Or, on the other hand, can you think of something to add to the sentence to make the “as” fit?
The writer thinks the “as” is needed for clarity. I think it is doesn’t belong, but I’m not sure how to explain that.
It seems like “as” would need something to go along with it, and the sentence is perfectly understood without the “as.”
Can you help me with the grammar to justify removal of the “as”?
Or, on the other hand, can you think of something to add to the sentence to make the “as” fit?
“as opposed to”
“as versus” strikes my eye/ear very strangely. I don’t have a grammar rule to cite besides not having seen that usage. Versus on its own would be perfectly clear.
posted by profreader at 8:50 PM on May 13, 2021 [12 favorites]
“as versus” strikes my eye/ear very strangely. I don’t have a grammar rule to cite besides not having seen that usage. Versus on its own would be perfectly clear.
posted by profreader at 8:50 PM on May 13, 2021 [12 favorites]
either use "vs." on its own, or use "as opposed to". Don't use both. They're redundant when used together.
posted by pdb at 8:56 PM on May 13, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by pdb at 8:56 PM on May 13, 2021 [29 favorites]
Opposed works, as others have said. I think "versus" implies two sides, so the "as" is superfluous is how I think I see it.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 8:57 PM on May 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Chrysopoeia at 8:57 PM on May 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
Best answer: 'vs' is a colloquial conjunction, it's used to compare two things, typically in shorthand ('Local Sport Team vs. Visiting Sport Team', 'my company's product vs. my competitor's product'). It's doing the same job as conjunctions like 'as opposed to' and 'as against', so you use one or the other, not both.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:58 PM on May 13, 2021
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:58 PM on May 13, 2021
Hola, professional copywriter. First off, fuck grammar, now let's get down to what sounds great and also is grammatically correct.
"As versus" is wrong and makes no sense. Vs always means versus, for the record. "As opposed" to is a thing you can write, sure.
Saying just "versus" is also fine but grammatically meh.
Since you're opposing two sides, there are a few much cleaner ways to tackle this with keeping the same structure. We must champion the interests of the 99 percent "above those" of the 1 percent. (see below for "" subs)
Instead of. Ahead of. Beyond those.
If you want to keep as, "We must champion the interests of the 99 percent "as greater" than those of the 1 percent.
basically, use as then something. as more necessary, as critical to a functioning society, as a greater need. I don't like it nearly as much, it's not good writing because more words is not better usually.
Pick your poison. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'm so shorthanding this, I could debate for hours one sentence like this and the variations on it for rhetorical and grammatical value with a colleague.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:09 PM on May 13, 2021 [28 favorites]
"As versus" is wrong and makes no sense. Vs always means versus, for the record. "As opposed" to is a thing you can write, sure.
Saying just "versus" is also fine but grammatically meh.
Since you're opposing two sides, there are a few much cleaner ways to tackle this with keeping the same structure. We must champion the interests of the 99 percent "above those" of the 1 percent. (see below for "" subs)
Instead of. Ahead of. Beyond those.
If you want to keep as, "We must champion the interests of the 99 percent "as greater" than those of the 1 percent.
basically, use as then something. as more necessary, as critical to a functioning society, as a greater need. I don't like it nearly as much, it's not good writing because more words is not better usually.
Pick your poison. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'm so shorthanding this, I could debate for hours one sentence like this and the variations on it for rhetorical and grammatical value with a colleague.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:09 PM on May 13, 2021 [28 favorites]
Are they trying to say that we must champion the interests of the 99 percent as being opposed to those of the 1 percent?
So, less "We must champion the 99%'s interests" and more "the 99%'s interests are inherently in opposition to those of the 1%, and so to champion the 99% we must act in opposition to the 1%, independent of what the 99% say"?
If they are, "as being against the interests of the 1%" could work.
If that's not what they're trying to say, see what everyone else has written here.
posted by miguelcervantes at 9:58 PM on May 13, 2021
So, less "We must champion the 99%'s interests" and more "the 99%'s interests are inherently in opposition to those of the 1%, and so to champion the 99% we must act in opposition to the 1%, independent of what the 99% say"?
If they are, "as being against the interests of the 1%" could work.
If that's not what they're trying to say, see what everyone else has written here.
posted by miguelcervantes at 9:58 PM on May 13, 2021
I would write, “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent."
posted by AugustWest at 11:26 PM on May 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by AugustWest at 11:26 PM on May 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
Just spitballing:
We must champion the interests of the 99 percent 'over' those of the 1 percent.?
'and not'?
(agree with the rest of the answers too)
posted by iamsuper at 1:17 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
We must champion the interests of the 99 percent 'over' those of the 1 percent.?
'and not'?
(agree with the rest of the answers too)
posted by iamsuper at 1:17 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
Meh. “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as vs. those of the 1 percent.”
We must WHAT? 'champion' or 'champion the interests'.
champion?
'the interests of the 99' vs '(the interests) of the 1'?
Or ...
champion the interests?
'of the 99' vs '(champion the interest of the 99) of the 1'?
One is picking a side to champion for reasons of your own while leaving the sides equal. The other is picking a side just because you don't want to think like the other side that you don't want to think like.
Is the MUST because of 99 vs 1, or is it because the 1 has to be wrong and must be opposed, or is it just because you like the 99 better than the 1. Subtle differences.
The 1 think poorly of the 99, that is wrong, we must think of the 99 in the opposite way that that the 1 think of the 99 because they (the 1) are evil for being so shitty that even their thoughts are wrong.
Because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" we must (as decent people) align with the 99 vs the 1 (interest wise).
Choosing between the interests of the 99 vs the 1, it's just a binary pick-a-side choice and this is just a religious sort of thing... you just MUST choose 99 over 1.
Reword the whole thing to make it clear not only WHAT but WHY.
The 1 are assholes and think of the 99 as disposable trash, that's horrible, we must think of the 99 as (not that way the 1 think of the 99). Because their assholes and we can't think like assholes do.
When given the choice to favor the interests of the 99 vs the interests of the 1, choose the interests of the 99. Because pick the actual majority.
Ditto previous. But... Because choose the interests of the oppressed. (implied, but better laid out) that the 1 are oppressors of the 99 and the choice is aligning with a power dynamic.
Find that out. But yeah, 'at' and 'vs' is wonky.
posted by zengargoyle at 4:16 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
We must WHAT? 'champion' or 'champion the interests'.
champion?
'the interests of the 99' vs '(the interests) of the 1'?
Or ...
champion the interests?
'of the 99' vs '(champion the interest of the 99) of the 1'?
One is picking a side to champion for reasons of your own while leaving the sides equal. The other is picking a side just because you don't want to think like the other side that you don't want to think like.
Is the MUST because of 99 vs 1, or is it because the 1 has to be wrong and must be opposed, or is it just because you like the 99 better than the 1. Subtle differences.
The 1 think poorly of the 99, that is wrong, we must think of the 99 in the opposite way that that the 1 think of the 99 because they (the 1) are evil for being so shitty that even their thoughts are wrong.
Because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" we must (as decent people) align with the 99 vs the 1 (interest wise).
Choosing between the interests of the 99 vs the 1, it's just a binary pick-a-side choice and this is just a religious sort of thing... you just MUST choose 99 over 1.
Reword the whole thing to make it clear not only WHAT but WHY.
The 1 are assholes and think of the 99 as disposable trash, that's horrible, we must think of the 99 as (not that way the 1 think of the 99). Because their assholes and we can't think like assholes do.
When given the choice to favor the interests of the 99 vs the interests of the 1, choose the interests of the 99. Because pick the actual majority.
Ditto previous. But... Because choose the interests of the oppressed. (implied, but better laid out) that the 1 are oppressors of the 99 and the choice is aligning with a power dynamic.
Find that out. But yeah, 'at' and 'vs' is wonky.
posted by zengargoyle at 4:16 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
Let’s say a sentence is drafted as follows: “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as vs. those of the 1 percent.”
Redraft it as "We must champion the interests of the 99% because the 1% will only ever champion themselves."
posted by flabdablet at 6:17 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
Redraft it as "We must champion the interests of the 99% because the 1% will only ever champion themselves."
posted by flabdablet at 6:17 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
"As anithesis to...", or "as antagonist to..."
posted by FirstMateKate at 7:01 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by FirstMateKate at 7:01 AM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
We much champion the interests of the 99% because the 1% don't champion the interests of the 1%. All of 'em. It's impossible to be 1% and champion the 99% at the same time.
The main problem is the 99 vs 1 which leaves no room for the author to be distinct from either category because there are only two. The context (limited as given) is ambiguous. Do WE assume that the author is in one side or the other of this binary divide. Of course, that's the problem with binary black/white. No room for the outside observer.
Maybe that's the intention of the author of the work that WE (who's we) get from a single bad sentence. Who is WE in this context. If you go binary 1% vs 99% then the author is in one or the other and is biased (fine).
When you break it out into the three, there's the one, the other, and the middle. More choices. Make it the bottom 40% vs the top 40%. Then the author can be right around 50% and making a choice.
That's the WHY. Is the author (in the not given context) picking one or the other from direct knowledge of both one and the other, or is it picking a meta point to oppose because of a choice between one or the other and not wanting to be in the other.
There are only two things to argue between binary, there are six between the one, the other, and the third not either of the other two. It boils down to three, two of which are choosing a side, the third is meta and choosing a direction on what the other two think as far as your imagination goes.
When things are 99 vs 1 there is no middle. It's one side or the other. The author is either 99% or 1%, take your choice.
Let’s say a sentence is drafted as follows: “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as vs. those of the 1 percent.”
Redraft it as "We must champion the opposite of what the 1% champion in regards to the 99% because we don't like the 1% and therefore champion the opposite of what the 1% champion the interests of th 99%. Those 1% are just assholes so do the opposite just because they're them. That's reason enough.
Three (six) paths.
I like 'anithesis'. “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as antithesis to the 1 percenters.” (bonus plural, promote the group to a category by pluralizing and stereotyping and an 'er' in there to really target the other).
posted by zengargoyle at 7:25 AM on May 14, 2021
The main problem is the 99 vs 1 which leaves no room for the author to be distinct from either category because there are only two. The context (limited as given) is ambiguous. Do WE assume that the author is in one side or the other of this binary divide. Of course, that's the problem with binary black/white. No room for the outside observer.
Maybe that's the intention of the author of the work that WE (who's we) get from a single bad sentence. Who is WE in this context. If you go binary 1% vs 99% then the author is in one or the other and is biased (fine).
When you break it out into the three, there's the one, the other, and the middle. More choices. Make it the bottom 40% vs the top 40%. Then the author can be right around 50% and making a choice.
That's the WHY. Is the author (in the not given context) picking one or the other from direct knowledge of both one and the other, or is it picking a meta point to oppose because of a choice between one or the other and not wanting to be in the other.
There are only two things to argue between binary, there are six between the one, the other, and the third not either of the other two. It boils down to three, two of which are choosing a side, the third is meta and choosing a direction on what the other two think as far as your imagination goes.
When things are 99 vs 1 there is no middle. It's one side or the other. The author is either 99% or 1%, take your choice.
Let’s say a sentence is drafted as follows: “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as vs. those of the 1 percent.”
Redraft it as "We must champion the opposite of what the 1% champion in regards to the 99% because we don't like the 1% and therefore champion the opposite of what the 1% champion the interests of th 99%. Those 1% are just assholes so do the opposite just because they're them. That's reason enough.
Three (six) paths.
I like 'anithesis'. “We must champion the interests of the 99 percent as antithesis to the 1 percenters.” (bonus plural, promote the group to a category by pluralizing and stereotyping and an 'er' in there to really target the other).
posted by zengargoyle at 7:25 AM on May 14, 2021
Much cleaner to get rid of the as/vs. conundrum and instead use "over." And while you're at it, verbing "champion" is pretty annoying.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:43 AM on May 14, 2021
posted by aspersioncast at 7:43 AM on May 14, 2021
Merriam-Webster has no problem with it.
I don't think it's new. It's a usage I remember hearing on radio news fifty years ago.
English has a long history of words slipping back and forth between parts of speech, though it's going to take more than my lifetime for "weekly spend" to be forgivable.
posted by flabdablet at 12:56 PM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's new. It's a usage I remember hearing on radio news fifty years ago.
English has a long history of words slipping back and forth between parts of speech, though it's going to take more than my lifetime for "weekly spend" to be forgivable.
posted by flabdablet at 12:56 PM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
The writer probably wants to make it clear that we want to champion the 99%, not not champion the 1%.
They're concerned that without the "as", the word "versus" could make it sound like we want to champion the 99% to become opposed to or act versus or against the 1%.
The phrasing sounds a little formal to my ear, but not wrong. I agree with many above that "as opposed to" seems like a more common way of doing this.
I've found that a certain strain of people--typically lawyers with a traditional bent--tend to pronounce Latin abbreviations with their English translations, in essence, treating "vs." as an alternate spelling of the English word "against." The fact that, in English, "versus" typically means something just a little bit different than "against" might also be doing something here.
posted by pykrete jungle at 10:26 PM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
They're concerned that without the "as", the word "versus" could make it sound like we want to champion the 99% to become opposed to or act versus or against the 1%.
The phrasing sounds a little formal to my ear, but not wrong. I agree with many above that "as opposed to" seems like a more common way of doing this.
I've found that a certain strain of people--typically lawyers with a traditional bent--tend to pronounce Latin abbreviations with their English translations, in essence, treating "vs." as an alternate spelling of the English word "against." The fact that, in English, "versus" typically means something just a little bit different than "against" might also be doing something here.
posted by pykrete jungle at 10:26 PM on May 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
The phrasing sounds a little formal to my ear
Sounds jarring, pretentious and incompetent to mine; a marker of somebody trying to sound formal when they don't actually understand how formal speech works. I have this in the same bucket of wrongness as people who throw an "-eth" suffix on every verb if they're trying to sound Biblical even where "-est" is actually what's required, or Tucker Carlson trying to use AAVE. Best avoided.
posted by flabdablet at 11:25 PM on May 14, 2021
Sounds jarring, pretentious and incompetent to mine; a marker of somebody trying to sound formal when they don't actually understand how formal speech works. I have this in the same bucket of wrongness as people who throw an "-eth" suffix on every verb if they're trying to sound Biblical even where "-est" is actually what's required, or Tucker Carlson trying to use AAVE. Best avoided.
posted by flabdablet at 11:25 PM on May 14, 2021
Response by poster: Thanks for all the good responses. I like "as opposed to".
posted by NotLost at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2021
posted by NotLost at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2021
« Older What is it like to work for a private equity-owned... | "Somehow, some day, I'm leaving for California" Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Tawita at 8:49 PM on May 13, 2021 [18 favorites]