»
<= Language for previous, next or random sentence

Tags

unnatural
View all tags

Logs

sacredceltic - May 4th 2011, 19:37
For me, humanity is a matter's shape.
sacredceltic - May 4th 2011, 19:37
linked to 874782
sacredceltic - May 4th 2011, 19:45
linked to 874792

Report mistakes

Do not hesitate to post a comment if you see a mistake!

NOTE : If the sentence does not belong to anyone and you know how to correct the mistake, feel free to correct it without posting any comment. You will have to adopt the sentence before you can edit it.

Sentence nº874781

  • belongs to sacredceltic
  • Add to favorites
  • Add to list
eng
For me, humanity is a matter's shape.

Important! You are about to add a translation to the sentence above. If you do not understand this sentence, click on "Cancel" to display everything again, and then click on the sentence that you understand and want to translate from.

Please do not forget capital letters and punctuation! Thank you.

Comments

  1. Zifre
    May 4th 2011, 19:42
    a form of matter?
  2. sacredceltic
    May 4th 2011, 19:44
    I meant a "shape", like a geometric one. A circle or a triangle ?
  3. Zifre
    May 4th 2011, 19:48
    Then I guess "a shape of matter". "A matter's shape" sounds unnatural. (Your alternative sounds much better than both though.)
  4. sacredceltic
    May 4th 2011, 19:50
    why can't shape be an intimate attribute of matter?
  5. Zifre
    May 4th 2011, 20:04
    "intimate attribute"? It doesn't work like that. There's no good rule to tell you which way to phrase it, you have to choose the one that sounds better. Often, when the possessor is inanimate (and especially when it is abstract), it sounds better to use "of".
  6. Swift
    May 4th 2011, 20:12
    Firstly, “form” can refer to a geometric shape.[1] Though if the idea is to emphasise the geometry, then shape is probably better.

    Secondly, I agree that “a x of matter” sounds more natural than “a matter's x”. Were you to drop the article, the possessive sounds OK to me, though, but then it's not just a particular shape or form.

    Finally, if the intent is, like that of your alternative (which, again, I agree with Zifre that sounds better), to contrast this one particular shape with others that matter can take, then it might fit better to use: “one shape of matter”.

    [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/form
  7. sacredceltic
    May 4th 2011, 20:17
    >Firstly, “form” can refer to a geometric shape.[1] Though if the idea is to emphasise the geometry, then shape is probably better.

    I do want to emphasise the geometry! It was actually my very purpose.

    >Secondly, I agree that “a x of matter” sounds more natural than “a matter's x”.

    Can't one, for instance, say "oxygen's formula" or "atom's size" ?






  8. sacredceltic
    May 4th 2011, 20:19
    >you have to choose the one that sounds better.

    Better to whom? What if it sounds good to a few theoreticians and bad to most laymen? What if sounds good to atheists and bad to the vast majority of deists?
  9. FeuDRenais
    May 4th 2011, 20:21
    I see what sc is saying. Personally, I'm okay with it.

    (I'm not going to enter the potentially coming war on which tags should be applied)
  10. Zifre
    May 4th 2011, 20:28
    > Can't one, for instance, say "oxygen's formula" or "atom's size" ?

    Yup, both are fine, but "the formula for oxygen" and "the size of an atom" are probably just as common.

    As Swift said, "one shape of matter" seems to best convey what I think you are trying to say.
  11. sacredceltic
    May 4th 2011, 20:38
    >Yup, both are fine // "one shape of matter" seems to best convey what I think you are trying to say.

    If the attribute "size" or "formula" can be the objects of a saxon genitive, I can't see why the attribute "shape" couldn't. Where is the logic?
    Remains usage...Usage by whom? Most English speakers are probably illiterate at geometry, let alone atheism, aren't they?
  12. Zifre
    May 5th 2011, 01:41
    I've thought about this some more, and I think I see the problem.

    When you say ARTICLE NOUN's NOUN, the article refers to the first noun. You can't say "a John's book", even though it is "a" book.

    The exception is when the entire phrase is a pre-established unit; then the article can refer to the second noun or the whole thing. In this case, "a matter's shape" makes it sound more like you are saying "shape of a matter", which makes little sense.

    So if you want an article to refer to the head and not the possessor, using "of" is really your only option.

    > Where is the logic?

    I wish languages were that easy...

    > Most English speakers are probably illiterate at geometry, let alone atheism, aren't they?

    It's an issue with grammar, not terminology.
  13. sacredceltic
    May 5th 2011, 07:39
    >So if you want an article to refer to the head and not the possessor, using "of" is really your only option.

    even as applied to "size" or "formula"?

    >I wish languages were that easy...

    Not all of them are ridiculously complicated and illogical.
  14. Zifre
    May 5th 2011, 14:12
    > even as applied to "size" or "formula"?

    Yes.

    > Not all of them are ridiculously complicated and illogical.

    Actually they kind of are, except for maybe Esperanto and Lojban. It is amazing how skewed your perception is...

    Also, in this case, I told you the logic, and you still don't accept it.
  15. sacredceltic
    May 5th 2011, 14:24
    >Actually they kind of are, except for maybe Esperanto and Lojban. It is amazing how skewed your perception is...

    I agree, so that means that your preception is skewed too, no?

    >Also, in this case, I told you the logic, and you still don't accept it.

    Says who? I'm reading you. I just wait until I'm fully convinced. Your last answer as to the other attributes plead in favour of your case...
    What do you think? That I'm some kind of easy whore?

Add a comment

You need to be logged in to add a comment. If you are not registered, you can register here.