0
Slartibartfast Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
Replacing a loss
Hello,
My girlfriend was writing a paper about cholera with a group in her class, and they included the phrase "it is important to quickly replace the water loss" in their paper. I told her that that the word "loss" should be changed to "lost," thereby switching the object from "loss" to "water." In my mind, it seems weird to say that you're replacing the loss itself as opposed to the object that has been lost. I realize that it might be better to say "water that has been lost", but I feel like the "that has been" is implied in this case, and that the phrase is still technically correct without.
Any thoughts?
My girlfriend was writing a paper about cholera with a group in her class, and they included the phrase "it is important to quickly replace the water loss" in their paper. I told her that that the word "loss" should be changed to "lost," thereby switching the object from "loss" to "water." In my mind, it seems weird to say that you're replacing the loss itself as opposed to the object that has been lost. I realize that it might be better to say "water that has been lost", but I feel like the "that has been" is implied in this case, and that the phrase is still technically correct without.
Any thoughts?
Top answer
I'm a non-native speaker, so you may want to wait for other replies. I see nothing wrong with water loss but I would change the verb: ... to quickly replenish the water loss.
- I'm a non-native speaker, so you may want to wait for other replies.
- I see nothing wrong with water loss but I would change the verb: ...
- to quickly replenish the water loss.
- CB
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
I'm a non-native speaker, so you may want to wait for other replies. I see nothing wrong with water loss but I would change the verb: ... to quickly replenish the water loss.
CB
CB
00
I thought about this as well, and I think my real problem lies with the verb "replace." There are plenty of other actions you could take on the loss itself (e.g. replenish, avoid, experience, etc.), but in this case, "replacing" the loss is what sounds odd to me.
00
I got into a discussion recently about an unusual pairing of words in a sentence that sounded strange to me. The sentence was something along the lines of
As cholera patients generally lose a lot of fluids, it is important to replace the water loss.
To me, it sounds strange to use the verb replace when the object is loss. In my discussion, I said that loss
As cholera patients generally lose a lot of fluids, it is important to replace the water loss.
To me, it sounds strange to use the verb replace when the object is loss. In my discussion, I said that loss
00
slartibartfastDoes this sound weird to anyone else, or am I just crazy?This is a false choice. It may sound weird to others, and you could still be crazy!
00
slartibartfast I said that loss should be replaced by lost, so that the object is now water, i.e. the thing that is being replaced. The loss itself is not being replaced, it's the water that's been lost.See definition #3. "Water loss" sounds normal, even commonplace, to me.
00
AlpheccaStarsSee definition #3. "Water loss" sounds normal, even commonplace, to me. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loss?s=tActually I think it's the second definition that clears things up (for me anyway). I was having a hard time viewing the "loss" as the o
0
Related Questions