0
Rotter Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
After he died
I know Goring. His father died recently.
1.Goring inherited a lot of wealth after he died.
2.Goring inherited a lot of wealth after the death of his father.
Are both fine?
1.Goring inherited a lot of wealth after he died.
2.Goring inherited a lot of wealth after the death of his father.
Are both fine?
Top answer
The first one would be okay in conversation, if you had just mentioned his father, because the tone of voice would make the meaning clear. In writing, it looks at first as though Goring inherited wealth after he himself died. The second is fine and eliminates the ambiguity.
- The first one would be okay in conversation, if you had just mentioned his father, because the tone of voice would make the meaning clear.
- In writing, it looks at first as though Goring inherited wealth after he himself died.
- The second is fine and eliminates the ambiguity.
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
The first one would be okay in conversation, if you had just mentioned his father, because the tone of voice would make the meaning clear. In writing, it looks at first as though Goring inherited wealth after he himself died. The second is fine and eliminates the ambiguity.
00
Thanks khoff
Your wrote the following:
In writing, it looks at first as though Goring inherited wealth after he himself died.
I heard this in BBC news. As I found it a bit awkward, I posted here.
Your wrote the following:
In writing, it looks at first as though Goring inherited wealth after he himself died.
I heard this in BBC news. As I found it a bit awkward, I posted here.
00
I agree, it's awkward. Even BBC News isn't perfect. Of course it's easy enough to figure out, since someone cannot actually inherit after their own death, but it's better to avoid the ambiguity in the first place.
0
Related Questions