TagsView all tags
LicenseCC BY 2.0 FR
This sentence was initially added as a translation of sentence #478176
added by darinmex, September 27, 2010
linked by darinmex, September 27, 2010
linked by Leono, September 27, 2010
linked by Espi, May 23, 2013
linked by deyta, June 10, 2014
Actually, this one should have been deleted - not CK's. But I got confused with all the duplicates around.
don't worry with duplicate, now the script will be run once a day :)
I didn't notice any problems in the Saturday download so I guess you fixed it OK.
Oh, but wait, if the duplicate removal script gets run once per day I can't wait a fortnight to revert sentence 268641
Because it won't be there in a fortnight.
I don't understand all this. In any case the sentence may read "bad for health" or "bad for your health" but not "bad for the health", at least not in american English.
American English isn't the only English.
Weird... "bad for the health" actually sounds okay to me here. Isn't it just the short-form for "bad for the health of the people"?
As an American English speaker, I have never heard it said "bad for the health", but always "bad for your health" or "bad for people's health". But, like blay_paul said, American English doesn't automatically merit precedence over other prestige dialects.
I guess I've been hanging out at Tatoeba for too long, already. Weird, non-American English is starting to sound normal to me...
Obviously American English isn't the only English. That's why I said "at least in American English". If the Brits or the Aussies say it that way, so much the better. If not, it should be changed.
Yes it's fine in British English.