Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[BMO]

A. "Death is a mysterious enemy of separation. It is so powerful with no respect either for young or old, good or bad, Christian or non-Christian, nor has it offered a guarantee that it would come with a "peaceful and comfortable release."

Questions 1-5, which is best and which ones are wrong:
1. With no respect either for young or old (original)
2. With no respect for either young or old
3. With no respect for either the young or old
4. With no respect for anyone, young or old
5. With no respect for anyone, either young or old.

Questions 6-7, which is correct?
6. "Nor has it offered a ..." (original)
7. "Nor does it offer a..." (present tense to match prior clause.)

Questions 8-9, which is correct:
8. Guided by Holy Spirit. (original)
9. Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Questions 10-11, which is correct:
10. I did not quite appreciate Psalmist said in Psalm 39:5. (original)
11. I did not quite appreciate what Psalmist said in Psalm 39:5.

thanks.

[bud]

1. Good
2. Good
3. Good (But if you use this way and continue with the rest of the sentence, it would sound best with "... the good or bad, etc..." It is a matter of style rather than correctness.)
4. Good
5. Probably good (I think it's good, but it seems a little clumsy to me.)
6. Good (My best attempt at an explanation is that for the guarantee, the writer is shifting gears. By using this tense, he/she is saying that throughout history, separation has up until now never once offered that guarantee. It implies the possibilty that a guarantee could be offered in some instance in the future. But the context makes it clear that the witer knows the guarantee will never be offered. So in actuality, this has no difference in meaning than if the present tense was chosen. It is a matter of style.)
7. Good (This uses the simple present tense to state a general truth - death never offers a guarantee of a peaceful and comfortable release.)
8. Probably wrong (I would like to see the context, but it is usual to use an article with 'Holy Spirit.')
9. Good
10. Wrong (It looks like a typographical error. Surprsingly, it is fairly common to find errors in published materials - even books, which usually have more time for preparation than newspapers and magazines!)
11. It depends (Is Psalmist an individual or the author of a Psalm? If it is an author - one of many Psalmists - then 'the Psalmist" is needed. If it is an individual, then #11 is correct as written.)

Excellent, BMO! Excellent!

[BMO]

Thanks a lot, Bud.
11. The Book of Psalm (150 chapters) was written by several people, so the "the" article is needed. He/she was a particular one who wrote that particular psalm, 39:5. So you are right.

1. I thought #1 is wrong because it should be for either young or old, not either for young or old. In other word, either -- or should be close to young and old.

also:

young or old, the young or the old, the young or old, are these all correct?

if the young or old is correct, did you say I need to repeat the "the" article as in, the rich or poor, the big or small?

[bud]

My pleasure, BMO.

11. Thanks. I didn't know that. So yes, the aritcle is needed.

1. No, it works both ways. I almost wrote a comment that 'for either' would be more likely, but I decided not to because the writer's choice of 'either for' seemed more eloquent to me. Sometimes, what's unusual for the spoken word can be more eloquent in writing or for a well-written speech - or even for the emphasis of a point.

also: Yes, they are all correct. "Young or old" seems most eloquent to me, and "the young or old" least eloquent. But they all work.

[BMO]

thank you so much.

[BMO]

1. I am going to vote for either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry.
2. I am going to vote either for Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry.

It seems to me the second sentence is wrong because "for" is inserted between "either" and "or."

[bud]

They are both correct, BMO.

[BMO]

thanks. that is easy to remember.