If the question were simply taken at face value, it would have to
mean, "Is this expression free of grammatical flaw?" This could be
restated as, "Does this expression exhibit an error in grammar?" If
the answer to this second question is no, then the answer to the first
is yes, and hence the answer to the question as posed is yes.
Responders so far have attempted to speculate on the meaning of the
expression and look for a possible rephrasing. I do not see that this
is necessary. If the questioner were looking for a clearer, better
way to express a thought, he or she ought to have offered a clue to
the intended meaning. But there is no clue given. So why not answer
it at face value?
So let's just analyze the expression.
"where is the opportunity to lie in all this"
The interrogative at the beginning and the inverted subject and verb
tell us that this expression is a question, either direct or indirect.
As a direct question, it would be presented in the form "Where is the
opportunity to lie in all this?" (initial cap., closing question
mark). It could be an indirect question, part of a longer sentence,
such as "I am unable to see where is the opportunity to lie in all
this." That wording is awkward and unnatural, but I would not want to
rule out the possibility that a grammatical sentence could be
constructed containing that wording as part of a subordinate clause.
As a question, the language is straightforward and presents no problem
or puzzle except in the phrase "to lie." "Where is the opportunity to
[verb] in all this" doesn't slow us down at all, does it? Consider
variations with other words substituted for "lie":
where is the opportunity to profit in all this
("opportunity" is the subject, "is" is the verb, and "to profit" is
an infinitive of an intransitive verb, a verbal adjective modifying
"opportunity," with "to" expressing purpose, so the sense of it is
"where in all this is there an opportunity [for someone] to profit?")
where is the opportunity to be found in all this
("opportunity" is the subject, "is to be found" is a passive
infinitive construction using a transitive verb, and the sense of it
is "where in all this can [someone] find an opportunity?")
where is the opportunity to appear in all this
("opportunity" is the subject, "is" is the verb, and "to appear" is
an infinitive of an intransitive verb with "to" expressing the future,
so the sense of it is "where in all this is an opportunity going to
show up?")
These are all perfectly grammatical constructions. "Lie" is just
another intransitive verb and can grammatically replace "profit," "be
found," and "appear" without disturbing the grammaticality of the
expression. The only problem we are having with it is semantic, not
syntactic or grammatical. If we understand it as meaning "to tell a
falsehood," it is exactly parallel to the example with "to profit."
If we understand it to mean "to await," as in the sense of "in that
direction opportunity lies," it is just like "to appear."
This can be minced still finer, but I am satisfied that this
examination provides sufficient basis for a simple "No: this
expression does not exhibit an error in grammar" and therefore "Yes:
this expression is free of grammatical flaw." Doesn't that answer the
question as posed?
Whether it is the most effective, smoothest, or most felicitous way of
conveying an idea is another matter entirely and was not asked.
Apteryx |
