0
Antonija Posted 16 years ago
Vocabulary
Review of the origins
Is the underlined part correct? "Preceding review" refers to both, "the source material" and "origins of negotiating practice".
Common elements in the numerous published definitions of this socio-economic phenomenon can already be discerned from the preceding review of the source material and origins of negotiating practice.
Or is this version better:
What can be discerned from the preceding review of the source material and from the resources on the origins of negotiating practice, are common elements of the numerous published definitions of this socio-economic phenomenon.
I am tempted to leave out some parts, but I am not sure that I am allowed to since it is a translation.
Many thanks
Common elements in the numerous published definitions of this socio-economic phenomenon can already be discerned from the preceding review of the source material and origins of negotiating practice.
Or is this version better:
What can be discerned from the preceding review of the source material and from the resources on the origins of negotiating practice, are common elements of the numerous published definitions of this socio-economic phenomenon.
I am tempted to leave out some parts, but I am not sure that I am allowed to since it is a translation.
Many thanks
Top answer
Unless you have a specific reason for the inverted structure of the second sentence, the first structure is simpler. I'm a little unclear what you are trying to express. First you say that "preceding review" refers to both "the source material" and "origins of negotiating practice".
- Unless you have a specific reason for the inverted structure of the second sentence, the first structure is simpler.
- I'm a little unclear what you are trying to express.
- First you say that "preceding review" refers to both "the source material" and "origins of negotiating practice".
- I understand this to mean that there is one review that covers both topics.
- However, in an attempt to fix it, you seem to be introducing the idea that there are two separate types of material: a "review of the source material" and also some "resources on the origins of negotiating practice".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
Unless you have a specific reason for the inverted structure of the second sentence, the first structure is simpler.
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to express. First you say that "preceding review" refers to both "the source material" and "origins of negotiating practice". I understand this to mean that there is one review that covers both topics.
However, in an atte
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to express. First you say that "preceding review" refers to both "the source material" and "origins of negotiating practice". I understand this to mean that there is one review that covers both topics.
However, in an atte
00
Hello Mr Wordy,
I wasn't sure whether you can use review with origins. But, it is the same review, so I'll choose the first version. Thank you very much.
I wasn't sure whether you can use review with origins. But, it is the same review, so I'll choose the first version. Thank you very much.
00
Yes, you can have a review of the origins of something. That is OK.
I may have misunderstood your question. I thought you were concerned about whether the first wording could be read as referring to two things: (i) the preceding review of the source material, and (ii) origins of negotiating practice.
I may have misunderstood your question. I thought you were concerned about whether the first wording could be read as referring to two things: (i) the preceding review of the source material, and (ii) origins of negotiating practice.
0
Related Questions