0
Rotter Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Agreed the transfer of
India was the leading buyer of conventional arms among developing nations in 2004, a report for the US Congress says.
The Congressional Research Service said Delhi agreed the transfer of $5.7bn in weapons, ahead of China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4200812.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India bought weapons to the tune of $5.7 billion dollars. Would you write 'agreed the transfer of $5.7 billion in weapons' ?
The word agree has nothing to do with buying. The word agree is a rather a simple one. It doesn't have any esoteric meaning.
The Congressional Research Service said Delhi agreed the transfer of $5.7bn in weapons, ahead of China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4200812.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India bought weapons to the tune of $5.7 billion dollars. Would you write 'agreed the transfer of $5.7 billion in weapons' ?
The word agree has nothing to do with buying. The word agree is a rather a simple one. It doesn't have any esoteric meaning.
Top answer
Hi Rotter, Fact #1: The article says India was a leading buyer . Fact #2: It also says India agreed to this huge transfer of weapons worth almost $6B. It doesn't explicitly equate these 2 facts.
- Hi Rotter, Fact #1: The article says India was a leading buyer .
- Fact #2: It also says India agreed to this huge transfer of weapons worth almost $6B.
- It doesn't explicitly equate these 2 facts.
- In other words, it doesn't say that India bought these particular weapons.
- Very often, these international deals are not just simple sales.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
Hi Rotter,
Fact #1: The article says India was a leading buyer.
Fact #2: It also says India agreed to this huge transfer of weapons worth almost $6B.
It doesn't explicitly equate these 2 facts. In other words, it doesn't say that India bought these particular weapons. Very often, the
Fact #1: The article says India was a leading buyer.
Fact #2: It also says India agreed to this huge transfer of weapons worth almost $6B.
It doesn't explicitly equate these 2 facts. In other words, it doesn't say that India bought these particular weapons. Very often, the
00
I wonder whether this use of 'agree' is intended to suggest a stronger sense of 'participation'. (You can 'agree to' something in which you have played no or little part.)
MrP
MrP
0
Related Questions