I don't understand the use of とする in this sentence

[Vahl]

"4つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」があらゆ るものの根元とする科学それを錬金術という"

I know it says something like (this translated very literally):
"The four Elemental: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind; The Origin of everything _________(something with science) that, is called Alchemy."

But what exactly the "あらゆるものの根元とする科学" means, i don't know.
If someone could explain to me the use of "とする" as it is employed in this sentence, i would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance.

 

[kazuau]

「とする」 is a combination of the quotation particle 「と」 and the verb 「する」.
So, the preceding part of 「と」 is a quotation.
「する」, which is somewhat universal verb but in this case, means "to define".

The sentence can be translated like this:
"The science, which says that the four elemental: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind; is the origin of everything, is called Alchemy."

 

[Elizabeth]

「とする」is a phrase indicating that someone assumes something or regards/defines/thinks of it in a certain way.

 

[Toritoribe]

"4つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」があらゆ るものの根元とする科学それを錬金術という"

I know it says something like (this translated very literally):
"The four Elemental: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind; The Origin of everything _________(something with science) that, is called Alchemy."

But what exactly the "あらゆるものの根元とする科学" means, i don't know.
If someone could explain to me the use of "とする" as it is employed in this sentence, i would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance.

Are there any typos, for instance as below?

４つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」があらゆ るものの根元だとする科学それを錬金術という
４つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」をあらゆるものの根元とする科学それを錬金術という

 

[Vahl]

Are there any typos, for instance as below?

４つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」があらゆ るものの根元だとする科学それを錬金術という
４つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」をあらゆるものの根元とする科学それを錬金術という

Here,this is where i got it from:


Thanks for the replies

 

[Toritoribe]

I see. So the writer/scripter used ４つのエレメンタル「地」「水」「火」「風」があらゆ るものの根元 as a clause or 根元だ/である, as in in my previous post.

 

[Glenn]

Copula omission, it seems, similar to 変と思います, I guess. Hmm... different though, as 根元 is a 名詞 and 変（だ） is a 形容動詞.

 

[kazuau]

湖を源泉とするその川=>その川は湖を源泉とする
湖が源泉であるその川=>その川は湖が源泉である
Nothing omitted here.
Obviously the Topic is その川 in either patterns,
but technically the Subjects differ.

 

[Glenn]

But above it's ～が～とする, which is a combination of ～を～とする and ～が～である, and Toritoribe said it should be ～が～だとする to be grammatical (I believe). That's why I said "copula omission".

 

[kazuau]

Ah, ic.
i missed the point.

Isn't it a variation of 体言止め? Like this:
「その川は湖が源泉」とする意見がある。

 

[Glenn]

That seems to be the same phenomenon with a different name to me. So I guess whether it's 名詞 or 形容動詞 doesn't matter, in that case. 形容動詞も体言の範囲に入りますね？

 

[Toritoribe]

が could be misinterpreted as the subject marker of とする when the copula is omitted. Probably that brought me a feeling of strangeness, when I first read the example sentence. It might be acceptable, but I don't recommend learners to use it.