0
Rambharosey Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Ellipsis question..
Please look at the following sentence:
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice the 1970's.
My colleague is contending that the above sentence wrongly compares "rate of increase" in 1950's with 1970's. In other words, this sentence does not compare "rate of increase" in 1950's with "rate of increase" in the 1970's.
However, I feel this sentence is correct and uses ellipsis as follows:
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice (the rate of increase of environmental pollution in) the 1970's.
Can someone please clarify.
Thanks,
Bharosey.
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice the 1970's.
My colleague is contending that the above sentence wrongly compares "rate of increase" in 1950's with 1970's. In other words, this sentence does not compare "rate of increase" in 1950's with "rate of increase" in the 1970's.
However, I feel this sentence is correct and uses ellipsis as follows:
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice (the rate of increase of environmental pollution in) the 1970's.
Can someone please clarify.
Thanks,
Bharosey.
Top answer
It's an interesting sentence. I'm looking forward to native speakers' replies. If they accept your theory of ellipsis - in other words, if they understand the sentence correctly and consider it grammatically correct, it's a very good example of the flexibility and grammatical looseness of English.
- It's an interesting sentence.
- I'm looking forward to native speakers' replies.
- If they accept your theory of ellipsis - in other words, if they understand the sentence correctly and consider it grammatically correct, it's a very good example of the flexibility and grammatical looseness of English.
- However, if one sees the sentence and it is supposed to make sense, what else could it possibly mean?
- I would say: In the 1950s the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice what it was in the 1970s.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
It's an interesting sentence. I'm looking forward to native speakers' replies. If they accept your theory of ellipsis - in other words, if they understand the sentence correctly and consider it grammatically correct, it's a very good example of the flexibility and grammatical looseness of English.
However, if one sees the sentence and it is supposed to make sense, what else could it p
However, if one sees the sentence and it is supposed to make sense, what else could it p
00
Hi CB, I am not understanding what difference your interpretation of this sentence brings to the meaning of the sentence.
In the 1950s the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice what it was in the 1970s
'it' I am assuming, would refer to "rate of increase of environmental pollution". So, again, the sentence would be:
In the 195
In the 1950s the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice what it was in the 1970s
'it' I am assuming, would refer to "rate of increase of environmental pollution". So, again, the sentence would be:
In the 195
00
rambharoseyHi CB, I am not understanding what difference your interpretation of this sentence brings to the meaning of the sentence.My wording makes absolutely no difference as far as the meaning is concerned. For me, it just makes the sentence definitely grammatical. I am not saying the original sentence isn't grammatical; I'm just wondering whether native s
00
0
rambharoseyRequesting others to please reply.Unfortunately no native speaker has expressed their opinion.
00
Doesn't look like our conversation caught fancy of any native speakers, only naive speakers like us:(.
Bharosey.
Bharosey.
00
Hi guys,
Please look at the following sentence:
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice the 1970's.
My colleague is contending that the above sentence wrongly compares "rate of increase" in 1950's with 1970's. In other words, this sentence does not compare "rate of increase" in 1950's with "rate of increase" in the 1970's.
Please look at the following sentence:
In the 1950's the rate of increase of environmental pollution was nearly twice the 1970's.
My colleague is contending that the above sentence wrongly compares "rate of increase" in 1950's with 1970's. In other words, this sentence does not compare "rate of increase" in 1950's with "rate of increase" in the 1970's.
00
CliveIt's the kind of thing we do say in casual speech, and no-one gets confused about the meaning.Thanks, Clive. [F] That's exactly what I thought!
00
Thanks Clive. I believe you meant: "...twice that in the 1970's"
Regards,
Bharosey.
Regards,
Bharosey.
00
Hi,
You're welcome.
"...twice that in the 1970's" is not wrong, but I guess I wrote "...twice that of the 1970's" because it sounds better to me. Perhaps it's more idiomatic.
Clive
You're welcome.
"...twice that in the 1970's" is not wrong, but I guess I wrote "...twice that of the 1970's" because it sounds better to me. Perhaps it's more idiomatic.
Clive
0
Related Questions