0
Azz Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
For me
a. For me, acting without improvisation is bad acting.
b. For me, acting without improvisation will be bad acting.
c. For me, an acting method that strictly forbids improvisation results in bad acting.
d. For me, an acting method that strictly forbids improvisation will result in bad acting.
I feel that there are two possible meanings here:
1. I believe that acting without improvisation is bad acting.
and it could mean
2. If I act without improvisation (use a method that strictly forbids improvisation) the result will be bad acting.
I would say that (1) can only mean (a) but the others could have either meaning.
Am I correct?
Many thanks.
b. For me, acting without improvisation will be bad acting.
c. For me, an acting method that strictly forbids improvisation results in bad acting.
d. For me, an acting method that strictly forbids improvisation will result in bad acting.
I feel that there are two possible meanings here:
1. I believe that acting without improvisation is bad acting.
and it could mean
2. If I act without improvisation (use a method that strictly forbids improvisation) the result will be bad acting.
I would say that (1) can only mean (a) but the others could have either meaning.
Am I correct?
Many thanks.
Top answer
azz I would say that (1) can only mean (a) but the others could have either meaning. None of them really implies #2 for me; they are all general statements of acting technique.
- azz I would say that (1) can only mean (a) but the others could have either meaning.
- None of them really implies #2 for me; they are all general statements of acting technique.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
azzI would say that (1) can only mean (a) but the others could have either meaning.None of them really implies #2 for me; they are all general statements of acting technique.
0
Related Questions