0
Sextus Posted 22 years ago
Grammar
Varia
Hi. I’m finishing a paper in English and I have several doubts, which are the following:
1) “The purpose of present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”. (Should I say “ultimately” instead of “ultimate”?).
2) “Hence, being productive of bad things, those supposed goods too must be deemed to be bad and, then, to cause nothing but unhappiness” (Is it ok to place “then” between the commas?).
3) “But in speaking of the ‘fortuitous’ link between those states, he is not denying that there is a necessary connection between them either.” (I am not sure if the use of “either” is correct).
4) “That he adopts this typical Skeptical attitude is confirmed by the following passage” (Is the first “that” correct?).
5) “The end is suspension of judgment, which we said is accompanied by unperturbedness”. (Should I put “we said” between commas?).
6) “The Skeptic reports descriptively on each thing according to what appears to him”. (Report on each thing?)
7) “For passage A is the only text which talks about the notion of private goods, but it does not say anything about the Skeptic’s endorsement of them. Hence, neither does passage B talk about the Skeptic’s ‘positive endorsement of private goods” (Is the use of “neither” correct?).
8) “It is possible that this notion in contained in the term ‘Pyrrhoninst’”. (Contained?).
9) “We are faced with two different goals at which the Skeptics aims”. (Should I rather say “for which”?).
10) “It is not rare that A happens. Neither is it rare that B takes place” ( Can I use “neither” in this way?).
11) “The difference that passage A presents with regard to passage B is that …” (Is “presents” correct?).
12) “Needless to say, he is not putting forward a view about what is objectively natural, but rather reporting what appears to him to be so”. (I’m not sure if what comes after the commas is correct).
Many thanks in advance,
Sextus
1) “The purpose of present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”. (Should I say “ultimately” instead of “ultimate”?).
2) “Hence, being productive of bad things, those supposed goods too must be deemed to be bad and, then, to cause nothing but unhappiness” (Is it ok to place “then” between the commas?).
3) “But in speaking of the ‘fortuitous’ link between those states, he is not denying that there is a necessary connection between them either.” (I am not sure if the use of “either” is correct).
4) “That he adopts this typical Skeptical attitude is confirmed by the following passage” (Is the first “that” correct?).
5) “The end is suspension of judgment, which we said is accompanied by unperturbedness”. (Should I put “we said” between commas?).
6) “The Skeptic reports descriptively on each thing according to what appears to him”. (Report on each thing?)
7) “For passage A is the only text which talks about the notion of private goods, but it does not say anything about the Skeptic’s endorsement of them. Hence, neither does passage B talk about the Skeptic’s ‘positive endorsement of private goods” (Is the use of “neither” correct?).
8) “It is possible that this notion in contained in the term ‘Pyrrhoninst’”. (Contained?).
9) “We are faced with two different goals at which the Skeptics aims”. (Should I rather say “for which”?).
10) “It is not rare that A happens. Neither is it rare that B takes place” ( Can I use “neither” in this way?).
11) “The difference that passage A presents with regard to passage B is that …” (Is “presents” correct?).
12) “Needless to say, he is not putting forward a view about what is objectively natural, but rather reporting what appears to him to be so”. (I’m not sure if what comes after the commas is correct).
Many thanks in advance,
Sextus
Top answer
Hello Sextus Tentative comments and amendments in bold. It's a little tricky without knowing the full text though, so I may be talking rubbish. Here's my effort, anyway: 1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”.
- Hello Sextus Tentative comments and amendments in bold.
- It's a little tricky without knowing the full text though, so I may be talking rubbish.
- Here's my effort, anyway: 1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”.
- ).
- Probably 'ultimate'; but I don't quite understand 'ultimate dogmatic commitment'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
Hello Sextus
Tentative comments and amendments in bold. It's a little tricky without knowing the full text though, so I may be talking rubbish. Here's my effort, anyway:
1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”. (Should I say “ultimately” instead of “ultimate”?).
Tentative comments and amendments in bold. It's a little tricky without knowing the full text though, so I may be talking rubbish. Here's my effort, anyway:
1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there exists an ultimate dogmatic commitment in the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness”. (Should I say “ultimately” instead of “ultimate”?).
00
Hi MrP, thanks for your corrections/suggestions. I rewrote some of the sentences and in some cases give you the context. I’d like to know your opinion.
1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there are any dogmatic beliefs underlying the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness and his philanthropic concern for the Dogmatist’s welfare”.
2) “For example, it is no
1) “The purpose of the present paper is to examine whether there are any dogmatic beliefs underlying the Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness and his philanthropic concern for the Dogmatist’s welfare”.
2) “For example, it is no
00
Hello Sextus (would that be Empiricus?)
1) That sounds fine to me.
2a) ['Unusual for' + object + infinitive] is more usual:
'For example, it is not unusual for a person who in peacetime respects certain moral rules, not because of fear of punishment but because it is the way he spontaneously tends to act, to break the very same rules when his country is at war; and h
1) That sounds fine to me.
2a) ['Unusual for' + object + infinitive] is more usual:
'For example, it is not unusual for a person who in peacetime respects certain moral rules, not because of fear of punishment but because it is the way he spontaneously tends to act, to break the very same rules when his country is at war; and h
00
Thanks "Pedanticus". Yes, Sextus Empiricus. Do you happen to have some philosophy background?
Well, I'm grateful for your corrections. Actually, they make me doubt whether my paper is full of errors, but anyway...
Regarding the last point, I give you the whole sentence, because it's quite long and maybe a little complicated:
"In Bett’s opinion, the crucial difference
Well, I'm grateful for your corrections. Actually, they make me doubt whether my paper is full of errors, but anyway...
Regarding the last point, I give you the whole sentence, because it's quite long and maybe a little complicated:
"In Bett’s opinion, the crucial difference
00
No background in philosophy, unfortunately; just the occasional inexpert
paddle...
The 'Bett's opinion' paragraph sounds fine to me, now I can read it as a whole,
and is perfectly lucid. My previous suggestion would have made it much more
difficult to follow.
The comma before 'in the former' does give a slight impression (to my ear) that
the 'from (1)..
paddle...
The 'Bett's opinion' paragraph sounds fine to me, now I can read it as a whole,
and is perfectly lucid. My previous suggestion would have made it much more
difficult to follow.
The comma before 'in the former' does give a slight impression (to my ear) that
the 'from (1)..
0
Related Questions