0
Deepuji Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Please look at the sentences below
For the moment, the greatest obstacle to ending the Syria war is the notion that it can be won militarily. I reject the current narrative that the Government of Syria is “winning.” Conquering territory through aerial bombardments into densely populated civilian neighbourhoods is not a victory. Starving besieged communities into surrender is not a victory. Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict.
My question is what is the difference between these two sentences?
1.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict.
2.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will sow the seeds of future conflict.
Thank you.
For the moment, the greatest obstacle to ending the Syria war is the notion that it can be won militarily. I reject the current narrative that the Government of Syria is “winning.” Conquering territory through aerial bombardments into densely populated civilian neighbourhoods is not a victory. Starving besieged communities into surrender is not a victory. Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict.
My question is what is the difference between these two sentences?
1.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict.
2.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will sow the seeds of future conflict.
Thank you.
Top answer
Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will sow the seeds of future conflict. There is no difference in intent; they just represent different time views of the writer: he first is his mental perspective from farther in the future.
- Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will sow the seeds of future conflict.
- There is no difference in intent; they just represent different time views of the writer: he first is his mental perspective from farther in the future.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
deepujiMy question is what is the difference between these two sentences?1.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict.2.Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will sow the seeds of future conflict.There is no difference in intent; they just represent di
00
Thank you first of all.
I am not sure whether I have understood,but I will try.
In "Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict."
Can this mean that when one side prevails,the seeds will have been sown?I mean the process of the seeds being sown would have started sometime in the past and would get completed with t
I am not sure whether I have understood,but I will try.
In "Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict."
Can this mean that when one side prevails,the seeds will have been sown?I mean the process of the seeds being sown would have started sometime in the past and would get completed with t
00
deepujiIn "Even if one side were to prevail in the short term, the devastating toll will have sown the seeds of future conflict."Can this mean that when one side prevails,the seeds will have been sown?I mean the process of the seeds being sown would have started sometime in the past and would get completed with the side prevailing?Yes, that seems right.
0
Related Questions