Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ClarissaMach]

Is this sentence ok? It does not sound good to me.

"When reviewing the changes that have had impact in the music industry, it is interesting to notice that at first we referred to events that took place 2000 years ago"
_________________
Stormy Weather.

[redset]

It's a bit unwieldy but it's grammatically fine. It might be the 'had impact' (instead of 'had an impact' or 'had some impact') that's throwing you off if you haven't seen that form before. Personally I would have said 'it is interesting to note' instead of notice, it just sounds better.

I don't really know what it's about though - what does whatever happened 2000 years ago have to do with the music industry?

[ClarissaMach]

Thank you, redset. Actually I wrote the sentence, that`s why I was in doubt if it was ok.

About the question "what does happend 2000 years ago that has to do with the music industry", well, actually it happend 4000 years ago - what is "it" ? The answer is "the first musical notation, which was discovered in Iraq, writen in a cuneiform tablet, 2000 bC" .
_________________
Stormy Weather.

[ClarissaMach]

Do you think that sentence would be better?

The first musical notation that has been discovered so far was written in a cuneiform tablet (one of the earliest known forms of written expression), four thousand years ago (2000 b.C.). It was found in Iraq.

I read the previous sentence again and I thought it was ambiguous - I mean, the first musical notation was written or was found 4000 years ago?
_________________
Stormy Weather.

[redset]

Oh nice! It would be really interesting to hear that music performed, I wonder if I can find anything like that...

Either sentence is fine actually. You could make the first one clearer by dropping the last comma:

The first musical notation, which was discovered in Iraq, written on a cuneiform tablet in/around/circa 2000 BC.

That way it's clearer that you're talking about the date it was written. A couple of other things though - we'd use the preposition on for talking about writing on a tablet (you're writing on the surface, like writing on paper), or you could say in if you're talking about the material (written in stone, written in clay). You can say around for the year if you're not exactly sure, and for dates we often say circa which is a nice word that basically means around.

If you're going to say "the first that has been discovered so far" (meaning there could be another one) I'd say "the earliest musical notation" instead. You usually call something the first if you're sure it's the first (you might be wrong of course, but you see no reason to think so!).

[Lorikeet]

[redset]

Actually I was going for a relative clause as a descriptive phrase there (giving some additional information) but you're right, it needs the was to match Clarissa's last post which is more of a statement. I was looking more at the post before it:

The answer is "the first musical notation, which was discovered in Iraq, [which/and was] written on a cuneiform tablet in/around/circa 2000 BC. "

What I wrote wasn't actually a full sentence because I was amending that part in the quotes, sorry!

[ClarissaMach]

Thank you both!
_________________
Stormy Weather.