0
Infinik Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
respective + nouns
There's this log on the farm. Two workers come in to work on the log at different times. When their work is done on the log, the log turns into a sculpture or some sort. So:
The log is shaped by the respective first and second worker.
The log is shaped by the respective workers.
Keeping respective in the above sentences, is the quantity of worker(s) correct?
The log is shaped by the respective first and second worker.
The log is shaped by the respective workers.
Keeping respective in the above sentences, is the quantity of worker(s) correct?
Top answer
The quantity of workers is correct. " Edit. Perhaps I misunderstood.
- The quantity of workers is correct.
- " Edit.
- Perhaps I misunderstood.
- If you're asking if "worker" should be plural, for instance, in your first example, I'd say YES, but, you know, I'm not 100% sure.
- For me, right now, its a tossup.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
The quantity of workers is correct.
Incidently, I would say, "The log is shaped by the first and second workers respectively."
Edit. Perhaps I misunderstood. If you're asking if "worker" should be plural, for instance, in your first example, I'd say YES, but, you know, I'm not 100% sure. For me, right now, its a tossup. Sorry. I've just never heard the sentence arranged that
Incidently, I would say, "The log is shaped by the first and second workers respectively."
Edit. Perhaps I misunderstood. If you're asking if "worker" should be plural, for instance, in your first example, I'd say YES, but, you know, I'm not 100% sure. For me, right now, its a tossup. Sorry. I've just never heard the sentence arranged that
00
Avangi
Edit. Perhaps I misunderstood. If you're asking if "worker" should be plural, for instance, in your first example, I'd say YES, but, you know, I'm not 100% sure. For me, right now, its a tossup. Sorry. I've just never heard the sentence arranged that way. In your second example, I feel confident that "workers" should be plural.
As I continue to re
00
Hi,
There's this log on the farm. Two workers come in to work on the log at different times. When their work is done on the log, the log turns into a sculpture or some sort. So:
The log is shaped by the respective first and second worker.
The log is shaped by the respective workers.
There's this log on the farm. Two workers come in to work on the log at different times. When their work is done on the log, the log turns into a sculpture or some sort. So:
The log is shaped by the respective first and second worker.
The log is shaped by the respective workers.
00
AvangiOK, I
Edit. Perhaps I misunderstood. If you're asking if "worker" should be plural, for instance, in your first example, I'd say YES, but, you know, I'm not 100% sure. For me, right now, its a tossup. Sorry. I've just never heard the sentence arranged that way. In your second example, I feel confident that "workers" should be plural.
00
CliveWhat about:
I'd use 'respectively' in a slightly more complicated sentence like this.
The sculpture's torso and limbs are shaped by the first and second workers respectively.
This makes it clear that worker #1 does the torso, and worker #2 does the limbs.
The sculpture's
00
Hi again,
What about:
The sculpture's torso and limbs are shaped by each respective first and second worker.
No, this sounds like there are several 'first workers' and several 'second workers'.
In addition, this does not make clear that the torso and the limbs are each shaped by a different worker.
What about:
The sculpture's torso and limbs are shaped by each respective first and second worker.
No, this sounds like there are several 'first workers' and several 'second workers'.
In addition, this does not make clear that the torso and the limbs are each shaped by a different worker.
00
Hi Infinik,
I think part of the problem is that you're trying to make "respectively" modify the worker. It doesn't! It modifies (or describes) the relationship.
There are two jobs. There are two workers. Do they work together on the two jobs? No. One does one, one does the other. I can say, "The first worker does the second job and the second worker does the f
I think part of the problem is that you're trying to make "respectively" modify the worker. It doesn't! It modifies (or describes) the relationship.
There are two jobs. There are two workers. Do they work together on the two jobs? No. One does one, one does the other. I can say, "The first worker does the second job and the second worker does the f
00
Hi, A.
Avangi
I think part of the problem is that you're trying to make "respectively" modify the worker. It doesn't! It modifies (or describes) the relationship.
...
Now, on the other hand, if the first worker does the first job and the second worker does the second job, it's easier to describe the situation, because we have a handy
00
Hi Infinik,
If you want to explore the term 'respective/respectively', I suggest that you stick to the simplest examples you can think of, eg sentences like 'Tom and Mary cooked chicken and fish'. I'm sorry, but I really can't understand at all your scenario about cavities and rings.
Best wishes, Clive
If you want to explore the term 'respective/respectively', I suggest that you stick to the simplest examples you can think of, eg sentences like 'Tom and Mary cooked chicken and fish'. I'm sorry, but I really can't understand at all your scenario about cavities and rings.
Best wishes, Clive
00
Clive
Hi again,
What about:
The sculpture's torso and limbs are shaped by each respective first and second worker.
No, this sounds like there are several 'first workers' and several 'second workers'.
In addition, this does not make clear that the torso and the limbs are
0
Related Questions