0
English 1b3 Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Whether it be/ be it
This is the original wording in a book I'm reading:
Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, sand or no sand.
Here are my variations, and I would like to know which of these - including the original - you think is best, and which are incorrect?
1 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, sand or not.
2 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it on sand or no sand.
2 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it on sand or not.
2 d. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it sand or no sand.
2 e. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it sand or not.
3 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be sand or no sand.
3 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be sand or not.
3 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be on sand or no sand.
4 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be on sand or not.
4 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether sand or no sand.
4 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether sand or not.4
4 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether on sand or no sand.
4 d. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether on sand or not.
Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, sand or no sand.
Here are my variations, and I would like to know which of these - including the original - you think is best, and which are incorrect?
1 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, sand or not.
2 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it on sand or no sand.
2 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it on sand or not.
2 d. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it sand or no sand.
2 e. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, be it sand or not.
3 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be sand or no sand.
3 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be sand or not.
3 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be on sand or no sand.
4 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether it be on sand or not.
4 a. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether sand or no sand.
4 b. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether sand or not.4
4 c. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether on sand or no sand.
4 d. Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, whether on sand or not.
Top answer
You have gone to a lot of trouble in your efforts to find variations of a perfectly good sentence, which is the best of them all. I consider only 3c, 3d (incorrectly numbered 4c), 4c and 4d to be correct. Rover
- You have gone to a lot of trouble in your efforts to find variations of a perfectly good sentence, which is the best of them all.
- I consider only 3c, 3d (incorrectly numbered 4c), 4c and 4d to be correct.
- Rover
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
You have gone to a lot of trouble in your efforts to find variations of a perfectly good sentence, which is the best of them all.
I consider only 3c, 3d (incorrectly numbered 4c), 4c and 4d to be correct.
Rover
I consider only 3c, 3d (incorrectly numbered 4c), 4c and 4d to be correct.
Rover
00
The original is makes sense, but there are a lot of missing words. The distance isn't sand or no sand.
So I thought variations that that spelled out the exact intended meaning may be preferred by some.
May I ask why you reject the other variations of mine?
Thanks
So I thought variations that that spelled out the exact intended meaning may be preferred by some.
May I ask why you reject the other variations of mine?
Thanks
00
They don't sound natural to me.
Others may disagree. Let's wait and see.
Others may disagree. Let's wait and see.
00
I agree they aren't as natural, but aren't there times where spelling out the exact meaning is needed at the expense of sounding natural? (I suppose the sentence we are dealing with wouldn't call for such clarity, however)
00
...aren't there times where spelling out the exact meaning is needed at the expense of sounding natural?-- I can't see that at all.
00
Mister Micawber I can't see that at all.What about legal writing?
00
No, it sounds naturally legalistic And when it doesn't, the legal department corrects it, that's for sure!
00
Now I felt that I had plenty [of water] to cover the remaining distance, sand or no sand.
OK, so what is the above short for then because it certainly has to be reduced?
What about this below? It's clear enough...
Having arrived late for practice, a written excuse was needed.
OK, so what is the above short for then because it certainly has to be reduced?
What about this below? It's clear enough...
Having arrived late for practice, a written excuse was needed.
00
0
Mister MicawberNow you've got a dangling participle.That's my point. It's clear and understandable. But should we reword it despite that fact? The original sentence with 'sand or no sand' is clear even though it looks as though it is saying the 'distance' is 'sand or no sand.' Because it is clear, you see no reason to recast the sentence.
0
Related Questions