Hi. I have a sentence that I think is badly written. I don’t know enough technical grammar stuff to say so w/ all the rules & stuff. I would appreciate a technical response as to what is wrong with the following:
It seems pretty clear that the sentence is saying that the solution can be solved rather than saying that the problems can be solved. But I don’t know how to state it technically.
Any help will be, well, helpful.
I would take out “The solution to”. With “solution” and “solved” you’re repeating yourself unnecessarily.
You can also say, “Good design can solve many land use problems.”
“The solution to most land use problems is good design.”
Good design will offer solutions to most land use problems.
doh! :smack: Good designs will offer solutions for most land use problems.
OR
The latter is better, because it is in active voice. Both are acceptable. In the original sentence, if you take out the clause, you have:
You’re not solving the solution; you’re solving the problem. 'Kay?
Yeah, but there’s another person who doesn’t believe me. That’s why I was hoping for a more technical explanation of the error.
For all I know, there isn’t one.
Which is not to say that I don’t appreciate everybody’s help! I do!! I always under-explain my OPs, I think…
Someone had to do it. Add a “g” to wron. 
No. No. No. Wron is in the dictionary with the defintion, let me check here…oh, I guess it’s not. CURSES!!
Technically, in your sentence the verb “solved” is modifying the noun “solution.” By definition, solutions don’t need to be solved. I think that’s why your bad grammer detector is ringing.
Bah, and my bad spelling detector should be ringing. GrammAR, GrammAR, GrammAR. I’m gonna go write it on the white board 100 times.
(to most land use problems) is a prepositional phrase. (Right?) The noun in the sentence is The solution, which “good design” is modifying, when you need it to modify “land use problems.”
The solution to most land use problems can be realized with good design.
That’s right. A Grammer detector is used to signal the presence of veteran NBC actors.
Delete the first “stuff” and then the “& stuff”.
Too many young folks add “& stuff” to the end of sentences these days.
The solution to most land use problems is good design.
Most land use problems can be solved with good design.
Define young? Also, helping would be helpful; nitpicking is annoying & stuff. 
But is good design truly crucial to land use problems? Wouldn’t it depend on the usage planned and the topography of the land?
(sorry, got intrigued by content).
The use of 2 variants of solution is redundant–the solution cannot solve. It can be realized; it can be , it can be aided by good design etc. Now, land use problems can be solved, answered, deciphered, elucidated, figured out, decoded, settled, determined, untangled and worked out–to name a few synonyms from my trusty thesaurus here.
Solutions cannot be solved. Verb cannot modify the noun variant of itself.
I don’t know the formal rules of grammar from a hole in the ground, but ‘solved with’ seems awkward to me; shouldn’t it be ‘solved by’?
<braces for impact>