to construct and build - redundant?

Question

hey you guys think the following sentence is redundant..

"It is required to construct and build the model within two weeks"

here are some definitions of construct (taken from wikipedia)

con·struct (k?n-strukt')

tr.v., -struct·ed, -struct·ing, -structs.

To form by assembling or combining parts; build.
To create (an argument or a sentence, for example) by systematically arranging ideas or terms.
Mathematics. To draw (a geometric figure) that meets specific requirements.

Yoong Liat · Accepted Answer

John182hey you guys think the following sentence is redundant..

"It is required to construct and build the model within two weeks"

here are some definitions of construct (taken from wikipedia)

con·struct (k?n-strukt')
tr.v., -struct·ed, -struct·ing, -structs.

Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

Your sentence contains a few redundant words.

Welkins2139 · Answer

It is required to construct the model within two weeks.

It is required to build the model within two weeks

Either one is fine.

Welkins2139 · Answer

Yoong Liat
John182hey you guys think the following sentence is redundant..

"It is required to construct and build the model within two weeks"

here are some definitions of construct (taken from wikipedia)

con·struct (k?n-strukt')
tr.v., -struct·ed, -struct·ing, -structs.
Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

I think this is wrong because it is implied in the past. It means that you say that in past not now.

Marius Hancu · Answer

Welkins2139Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

I think this is wrong because it is implied in the past. It means that you say that in past not now.

The answer is correct.
The past isn't involved in this sentence.

Check your modal verbs (see Swan, should). "Should" here doesn't indicate past, it indicates an obligation. In terms of time, it's future wrt to the time of uttering the sentence.

Clive · Answer

Hi guys,

"It is required to construct and build the model within two weeks" Yes, redundancy here.

'Construct' suggests giving more thought to 'planning' the model, to figuring out the methods. On the other hand, if it's a model that I have built many times before (eg a model airplane that comes with instructions), 'build' seems more natural to me.

I also don't like the phrase 'It is required to. . . ', because of the 'to'. I'd write it as 'It is necessary to . . .'

Best wishes, Clive

Yoong Liat · Answer

Welkins2139
Yoong Liat
John182hey you guys think the following sentence is redundant..

"It is required to construct and build the model within two weeks"

here are some definitions of construct (taken from wikipedia)

con·struct (k?n-strukt')
tr.v., -struct·ed, -struct·ing, -structs.
Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

I think this is wrong because it is implied in the past. It means that you say that in past not now.

I beg to differ. There is no past implication in my sentence. It's an instruction that carries a deadline.

If the construction of the model is related to the past, the sentence should read as follows.

The model should have been constructed within two weeks. This sentence states clearly that it failed to meet the deadline.

I hope this answers your question.

Welkins2139 · Answer

Marius Hancu
Welkins2139Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

I think this is wrong because it is implied in the past. It means that you say that in past not now.
The answer is correct.
The past isn't involved in this sentence.

Check your modal verbs (see Swan, should). "Should" here doesn't indicate past, it indicates an obligation. In terms of time, it's future wrt to the time of uttering the sentence.

Marius Hancu

In terms of time, it's future wrt to the time of uttering the sentence.

Would you explain this?

Thanks

Marius Hancu · Answer

Welkins2139
Marius Hancu
Welkins2139Answer: The model should be constructed within two weeks.

I think this is wrong because it is implied in the past. It means that you say that in past not now.
The answer is correct.
The past isn't involved in this sentence.

"Should" here doesn't indicate past, it indicates an obligation. In terms of time, it's future wrt to the time of uttering the sentence.

In terms of time, it's future wrt to the time of uttering the sentence.
Would you explain this?

Sure.

If you're saying (uttering) today:
The model should be constructed within two weeks.
it means that the model must be constructed within 2 weeks from today, and that is in future time re: the reference point in time, which is today.

I indicated future time, because it shouldn't be confused with future tense.

to construct and build - redundant?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions