In that vs there, is it the same thing?
If a person feigns anything, it is just there that he is deficient.
If a person feigns anything, it is just in that that he is deficient.
Are they the same?
Top answer
No, and neither are viable. " is always a bad idea. " In my opinion, to say simply, "Someone is deficient" is weird without specifying the quality, characteristic, capability, etc.
- No, and neither are viable.
- " is always a bad idea.
- " In my opinion, to say simply, "Someone is deficient" is weird without specifying the quality, characteristic, capability, etc.
- in which they are deficient.
- " I suppose you could say something like "Sir, I find you deficient," meaning that I find you, sir, to be lacking in general.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
No, and neither are viable. "...that that..." is always a bad idea. Try:
"If someone feigns something, it's because they're somehow deficient."
In my opinion, to say simply, "Someone is deficient" is weird without specifying the quality, characteristic, capability, etc. in which they are deficient.
"Jack Dammit is deficient in English instruction."
I suppose you could s
0anonymous In that vs there, is it the same thing?
In your example, yes, but that doesn't mean it's always the same thing.
(I'd change them thus:
... just there where he is deficient / ... just in that where he is deficient
)
CJ
0
Related Questions