The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

In China, that was the Qing dynasty period... Options
Koh Elaine
Posted: Sunday, February 4, 2018 12:29:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/4/2012
Posts: 3,488
Neurons: 14,298
During the same period of time, in the USA, the area of New York was given its present name. In China, that was the time the Qing dynasty, and Isaac Newton found the law of universal gravitation in England. The Palace and Park of Versailles were established in France. It was also the time of the Johor Empire around the Strait of Malacca.

1. I think the part in bold is not quite right. Can I change it to 'In China, that was the Qing dynasty period'? Or should it be 'In China, that was the reign of the Qing dynasty'?
2. Shouldn't it be 'founded' instead of 'found'?

Thanks.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Sunday, February 4, 2018 4:35:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 906
Neurons: 5,759
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Koh Elaine wrote:
During the same period of time, in the USA, the area of New York was given its present name. In China, that was the time the Qing dynasty, and Isaac Newton found the law of universal gravitation in England. The Palace and Park of Versailles were established in France. It was also the time of the Johor Empire around the Strait of Malacca.

1. I think the part in bold is not quite right. Can I change it to 'In China, that was the Qing dynasty period'? Or should it be 'In China, that was the reign of the Qing dynasty'?
2. Shouldn't it be 'founded' instead of 'found'?

Thanks.


"In China that was the time the Qing dynasty" is not correct, it' should be "In China that was the time of the Qing dynasty " to be proper English.

I prefer the first of your two suggestions "In China that was the Qing dynasty period" although I don't think the comma is needed after China.

Isaac Newton found the laws of universal gravitation in that he discovered them, they existed independently of him. He did not found them in the sense of a person creating those laws so founded cannot be used.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Orson Burleigh
Posted: Sunday, February 4, 2018 4:55:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 187
Neurons: 75,423
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, United States
Koh Elaine wrote:
During the same period of time, in the USA, the area of New York was given its present name. In China, that was the time the Qing dynasty, and Isaac Newton found the law of universal gravitation in England. The Palace and Park of Versailles were established in France. It was also the time of the Johor Empire around the Strait of Malacca.

1. I think the part in bold is not quite right. Can I change it to 'In China, that was the Qing dynasty period'? Or should it be 'In China, that was the reign of the Qing dynasty'?
2. Shouldn't it be 'founded' instead of 'found'?

Thanks.


The bolded part with reference to the Manchurian Qing Dynasty's (1644-1911) taking control of China is a bit odd in that it shares a sentence with a particular scientific development in England, while the other region or nation specific contemporary developments were each treated in a separate sentence: The Dutch Niue Amsterdam becoming British New York, The building of Versailles in France, the preeminence of the Johor Empire along the Strait of Malacca. Newton's scientific breakthrough (in re gravity) could stand alone as a single sentence, though it also might well be included in a sentence with the renaming of Niue Amsterdam to New York, as these were both British events (New York's being part of the USA occurred when the USA was founded in the following century).

Changing 'time of the Qing Dynasty' to 'Qing Dynasty period' or to 'reign of the Qing Dynasty' is, I think, a matter of the writer's style or preference. 'Qing Dynasty period' or 'reign of the Qing Dynasty' conveys substantially the same information as 'time of the Qing Dynasty.'

Newton might be said to have 'found the law of universal gravitation' in the sense of having discovered a set of principles which satisfactorily explain gravity's effect. Though there is certainly scope for argument, I would suggest that Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation. Founded wouldn't seem to apply as the law of universal gravitation is not an institution; it is a testable theory, a formulation which explains and predicts the effects of gravity.
Orson Burleigh
Posted: Sunday, February 4, 2018 5:01:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 187
Neurons: 75,423
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, United States
Sorry, I seem to have cross posted with Sarrriesfan. Mea Magna Culpa
Koh Elaine
Posted: Sunday, February 4, 2018 5:44:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/4/2012
Posts: 3,488
Neurons: 14,298
Many thanks, Sarrriesfan and Orson Burleigh.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:05:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 906
Neurons: 5,759
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Sorry, I seem to have cross posted with Sarrriesfan. Mea Magna Culpa


There is no need to apologise, your explanation is far more detailed than mine.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.