Grammatical issues

Question

Hi,please help me with these sentences: According to some estimates, about half a million Poles aged between fourteen and twenty-two deliberately choose the career path of the criminal. (shouldn’t it be “of a criminal”?) Since the beginning of life on Earth, woman's principal vocation and role has been motherhood. She has always been a homemaker and giver of life (shouldn’t it be “a woman’s principal vocation” and “a role” and “a giver of life”?) In their opinion, these unborn creatures should be guaranteed the right to live as they are not simply undesirable objects which can be quickly removed but living human beings who in the first month of life already have a heart, eyes and a spine. (it’s about abortion, infants – can we say “creatures” about human beings?) Should we give more rights to the woman or her unborn child? (shouldn’t it be “a woman”) Can we say “to cultivate new kinds of animals” ? Thank you so much.

Clive · Accepted Answer

According to some estimates, about half a million Poles aged between fourteen and twenty-two deliberately choose the career path of the criminal. (shouldn’t it be “of a criminal”?) 'The criminal' is a rather rhetorical way of referring to one criminal as a reprentative of all criminals. It's like saying 'The lion is a proud animal'. I'd prefer 'a criminal' in your sentence, because it is not a very fancy or rhetorical sentnce.
Since the beginning of life on Earth, woman's principal vocation and role has been motherhood. She has always been a homemaker and giver of life (shouldn’t it be “a woman’s principal vocation” and “a role” and “a giver of life”?)

Saying 'woman' is a common way of referring to 'all women'. Consider we say eg '*** made man'.

You can't say 'woman's a role'.

a homemaker and giver of life It's common to omit the second 'a'. eg Tom is a teacher and (a) writer.

In their opinion, these unborn creatures should be guaranteed the right to live as they are not simply undesirable objects which can be quickly removed but living human beings who in the first month of life already have a heart, eyes and a spine. (it’s about abortion, infants – can we say “creatures” about human beings?)
You can if you want to. I wouldn't. What word would you prefer?

Should we give more rights to the woman or her unborn child? (shouldn’t it be “a woman”)

'The woman' suggest there is some mention of her earlier in the context.

Can we say “to cultivate new kinds of animals” ? Very generally speaking, you cultivate crops and rear animals.

Clive

Jack.Dalton · Answer

"You can't say 'woman's a role'." I know I can't. I was going for sth like "a woman's principal vocation and (a) role"

"You can if you want to. I wouldn't. What word would you prefer?" - none of these sentences are mine, I just took them from a book written by a polish woman. (It's because she's polish I assumed there'd be some mistakes in these books) The books are full of essays and they're meant to be a help for learning English vocabulary. Frankly, I have no idea what to use - maybe "human beings", or just "beings".

"Very generally speaking, you cultivate crops and rear animals." so that means that we can't say like this. (I mean we can't say "to cultivate new....")

"'The woman' suggest there is some mention of her earlier in the context." ok, I don't want to paste the whole text here, but she may have been mentioned or not. I just thought it didn't matter if we are talking about sth in general. This text is basically about abortion (i know u figured it out urself

) and in my understanding it's a general question "should we give more rights to a woman(meaning any woman who will ever decide to have an abortion) or her unborn child?" and I thought that "the" is used when we refer to one particular woman but maybe i'm totally wrong. These articles are killing me

Regards.

Clive · Answer

"You can't say 'woman's a role'." I know I can't. I was going for sth like "a woman's principal vocation and (a) role"

You could say 'a woman's principal vocation and (a woman's principal) role' .

"You can if you want to. I wouldn't. What word would you prefer?" - none of these sentences are mine, I just took them from a book written by a polish woman. (It's because she's polish I assumed there'd be some mistakes in these books) The books are full of essays and they're meant to be a help for learning English vocabulary. Frankly, I have no idea what to use - maybe "human beings", or just "beings". It's tricky, because it raises the question of whether an unborn child is a separate entity.

"Very generally speaking, you cultivate crops and rear animals." so that means that we can't say like this. (I mean we can't say "to cultivate new..") Sure. You can 'cultivate new crops'.

"'The woman' suggest there is some mention of her earlier in the context." ok, I don't want to paste the whole text here, but she may have been mentioned or not. I just thought it didn't matter if we are talking about sth in general. This text is basically about abortion (i know u figured it out urself

) and in my understanding it's a general question "should we give more rights to a woman(meaning any woman who will ever decide to have an abortion) or her unborn child?" and I thought that "the" is used when we refer to one particular woman but maybe i'm totally wrong. These articles are killing meArticles are hard to learn and hard to teach. Don't agonize over them. It takes time.

Clive

Jack.Dalton · Answer

"It's tricky, because it raises the question of whether an unborn child is a separate entity".

Ok so what if it is? What word would be appropriate then?

And what if it's not?

"Sure. You can 'cultivate new crops'." ok so she did make a mistake (again)

Ok, I'm going to do sth inappropriate and paste the whole text here so you can see yourself how one of these essays looks. Sometimes people reply to my posts and write sth like "(about a sentence) it's a bit sloppy, but a native speaker would understand" - the thing is it's not about what a native speaker would understand, it's about this being correct

[you know i could write "I think I'm gonnagone (or went) home now" - I guess you would understand it but it's not the point (i mean not the only point) of books that are supposed to teach you English) ]

6.1. Abortion - to ban or not to ban

Abortion is the removal of the foetus from the woman's womb during the first weeks of pregnancy. The issue of abortion arouses much controversy. People present the rational and moral arguments both for and against banning it. Many feel that it should be legal only when the mother's life is in danger. Others believe that abortion should never be undertaken under any circumstances.

Supporters of abortion, including feminists, point to the very difficult financial situation and low standard of living of many families. They claim that making abortion illegal could do more harm than good to the unwanted child whose birth may be a disaster for the whole family.

Abortion can also be hazardous to the woman's health. If it is not performed by a qualified gynaecologist in hospital but by an incompetent person, it may have tragic consequences. The most pernicious effect of illegal abortion can be permanent sterility or even the woman's death. Therefore, all women should have the right to safe and legal abortion.

What is more, abortionists say that in the interests of tolerance, sexual freedom, freedom of choice and decisions about the size of the family, abortion should never be banned.

The opponents of abortion present equally strong arguments. Firstly, they claim that those who support abortion look at the problem from one point of view only, namely from the point of view of women who sentence their victims - children as yet unborn - to death. In their opinion, these unborn creatures should be guaranteed the right to live as they are not simply undesirable objects which can be quickly removed but living human beings who in the first month of life already have a heart, eyes and a spine. Contrary to their mothers, however, they are not given freedom of choice and cannot defend themselves. Therefore, legal abortion may be regarded as murder; the fact that the woman agrees to it is immoral.

What is more, anti-abortionists argue that legal abortion is a serious violation of tradition. Since the beginning of life on Earth, a woman's principal vocation and role has been motherhood. Everything seems to prepare her for the task of giving birth to a child: her constitution, physical features and personality. She has always been a homemaker and giver of life. Now some women are trying to oppose both tradition and nature, which is harmful for their mental health. The decision to have an abortion gives rise to traumas that many women cannot shake off. It gives them qualms of conscience until the end of their lives.

Everyone will probably agree that abortion is evil. However, isn't it a lesser evil than having another unwanted child? On the other hand, is a difficult situation or career a sufficient excuse for killing? Should we give more rights to the woman or her unborn child? Undoubtedly, these are not simple questions. Banning abortion, however, does not solve the problem. A solution that could probably be accepted by everyone is to give birth to a child and leave it in hospital without any further legal consequences. If a woman decides to do this, the unwanted infant has the chance to live and be adopted by a loving couple. On the other hand, there should be more family planning centers, teenagers should be educated at school on birth control methods. Giving better access to cheap contraceptives should be guaranteed. Wouldn't it be better to prevent pregnancies than face moral dilemmas?

I'm sorry about that. It won't happen again. Regards.

Clive · Answer

"It's tricky, because it raises the question of whether an unborn child is a separate entity".

Ok so what if it is? What word would be appropriate then? Maybe 'a baby'.

And what if it's not? Maybe 'a foetus'.

It seems to me that the writer deliberately used the world 'creatures' to underline the confusion over the status of an unborn child.

"Sure. You can 'cultivate new crops'." ok so she did make a mistake (again)

Ok, I'm going to do sth inappropriate and paste the whole text here so you can see yourself how one of these essays looks. I don't know what kind of comment you want from me. Seems pretty well written to me, at just a quick glance..

Sometimes people reply to my posts and write sth like "(about a sentence) it's a bit sloppy, but a native speaker would understand" - the thing is it's not about what a native speaker would understand, it's about this being correct

[you know i could write "I think I'm gonnagone (or went) home now" - I guess you would understand it but it's not the point (i mean not the only point) of books that are supposed to teach you English) ]

Clive

Jack.Dalton · Answer

No it's ok. I don't want you to comment on this. It was just one of them and well... sometimes it's good and sometimes even you say "the whole sentence is a disaster"

Just that

Grammatical issues

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions