The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus Valley in the fifth century B.C., bringing the Aramaic script with it, from which was derived both northern and southern Indian alphabets.

(A) Same
(B) the Aramaic script with it, and from which deriving both the northern and the
(C) with it the Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and the
(D) with it the Aramaic script, from which derives both northern and
(E) with it the Aramaic Script, and deriving from it both the northern and

Please explain your answer

A implies the derivation was done from 'it' which stands for the empire.
B introduces 'and' that creates a lack of connection. Also, 'deriving' is incorrect tense.
D has 'derives' which is a singular verb but the subject is plural 'northern AND southern alphabets'
E has incorrect verb tense in 'deriving' and also has an extra 'and' which creates lack of connection.

C is correct.

Choice E: 'Deriving' doesn't create a tense problem; it's parallel to 'bringing.' The problem that it DOES create, though, is a complete shift in meaning: choice E says that _the Achaemenid empire itself_ actually derived both of the alphabets in question. This is, of course, at odds with the actual meaning of the sentence, which indicates only that the alphabets _were derived_ (anonymously) at some later time. The other issue with choice E is the double 'it.'

The other criticisms are generally on target.

An added difficulty in this problem is the somewhat unconventional use of 'derive' as an intransitive verb: usually agent X derives item Y (transitive verb), but, here, item Y _derives from_ item Z. We don't see that much.

Aramic script, which derive north and south languages

or

Aramic script, which derives north and south languages -- I think this is correct, as derive is related to the aramic script

which derives - script is singular.

Sorry still having trouble between derive and derives.

oh - should have spelled this out more carefully. Ya's question didn't mirror the text in the original question. JUST going by what ya typed:

"Aramaic script, which derives north and south languages" would be correct - because we are saying that the script derives the languages (which doesn't logically make a ton of sense, but that's another issue).

In the actual question, though, there is a "from" in there:

"Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and southern languages"

Here, the structure indicates that the languages derive the script- we've got an inverted construction. Normal construction would be: "The northern and southern languages derive from the script."

So in the original question, yes, we use derive. No "s."

Hi Stacey,

I am confused with the meaning of "derive".

1. The northern and southern languages derive from the script.
2. The northern and southern languages are derived from the script.

Do both sentences mean the same thing?
Do both sentences mean "The northern and southern languages are developed from the script"? It sounds strange to me that the languages are developed from the script. Most likely, I misunderstand the meaning of "derive".

Thanks in advance.

both are valid, but their meanings differ.
#1 means only that the origins of the two languages lie in the script. the implication is most likely that the languages evolved from the script - most likely without conscious planning.
#2 (which would probably appear in the past tense - "were derived"), on the other hand, implies that the languages were derived purposefully from the script, with conscious planning.