mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Narcoterrorism which is... Options
Dukul
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 4:01:27 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2020
Posts: 314
Neurons: 5,422
Location: Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Are these sentences grammatical and natural?

Narcoterrorism which is being unleashed upon us by vested interests within our nation and neighbouring countries to destroy our young population and systematically ruin our future, is one of the biggest challenges that we face today. Are we ready to take it head on?
WeaselADAPT
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 8:28:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2014
Posts: 366
Neurons: 87,036
Location: Kentwood, Michigan, United States
Dukul wrote:
Are these sentences grammatical and natural?

Narcoterrorism which is being unleashed upon us by vested interests within our nation and neighbouring countries to destroy our young population and systematically ruin our future, is one of the biggest challenges that we face today. Are we ready to take it head on?


Dukul,

1. The subordinate phrase, "which is being unleashed upon us by vested interests within our nation and neighbouring countries to destroy our young population and systematically ruin our future," is quite long, making the sentence unwieldy and difficult to read, especially aloud. I would try to shorten it, break it up, or find ways to create natural breaks throughout it.
2. That same phrase (if you keep it as it is) is missing the comma at the beginning, which you should put after "Narcoterrorism."
3. I think "our young population" is not the right phrase for what you mean. This sounds like your entire population is young, but what you're trying to do is reference the young people in your society. Either "our youth" or "our young people" or "our younger generation."
4. In the second sentence, you either "take it on" or you "face it head on."
5. As an editor, I also feel like the second sentence is a little weak after the first one. It kind of sounds like you're questioning whether you're actually ready (like you think maybe you're not), when I think the question you're trying to ask is, "Are you with me? Are you ready?! Are you ready to FIGHT BACK???"

So, I suggest:

Quote:
Narcoterrorism – unleashed upon us by interests within our nation and our neighbouring countries – is destroying our younger generation and systematically ruining our future! Narcoterrorism is one of the greatest threats to our national security that we face today! Are we ready to take on narcoterrorism? Are YOU ready? Join us in the fight to save our youth, take back our country, and preserve our nation's ideals! Join us today in the fight against narcoterrorism!

All right, I got a little carried away. I hope you can get what you need from this.

the Weasel
WeaselWorks Freelance Editing
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 5:02:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,403
Neurons: 227,927
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
WeaselADAPT wrote:
. . . Join us today in the fight against narcoterrorism!

Yeah Brother! (oops - is that a bit un-British?)

Dukul - I agree with that answer. Except for the comma after "Narcoterrorism", your original does not seem to violate any grammar rules or conventions - but . . . I would comment on the style.

The first sentence is too long without breaks, definitely.

I'm not sure what the 'context' of this is. If it is the introduction to an (unemotional) academic paper about the state of the nation concerning its readiness to combat narcoterrorism, then it is worded well.

However, if it is a plea to the people to wake up and DO something about narcoterrorism, then it is too formal and "weak".
The largest part of the first sentence consists of a passive (is being unleashed) and two infinitives (to destroy, and to ruin) - and the main verb is "is". These are all weak forms which don't "grab the attention". (Probably Weasel, as an editor, can give more advice or "author's hints" about this).
The suggested alternative uses "unleashed" as a lone participle, separated from the main sentence (which makes it more noticeable) and uses the active "is destroying and ruining", which impinge acceptably.

I hope this helps.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 6:09:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,403
Neurons: 227,927
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I'm writing this as a separate post as it adds my opinion on writing in general - rather than your particular passage.

I'm not a professional writer (or anything to do with writing/publishing) but I DO read a lot!
Romany, as a professional author, and Weasel, as an editor, may have comments to make about what I say.

English is made up from two major "streams" of language - one is influenced by Latin, Greek, French and "Romance" languages in general (southern and south-eastern Europe); the second is influenced by Old Saxon, Anglo-Frisian and Norse (Northern Europe) plus some 'Celtic' (Brythonic and Gaelic).
Besides affecting the dialects and accents of different parts of the island (North/South), the vocabulary of the two affect the emotional feeling and (somewhat) the 'class' (upper/lower class).
I'm not mentioning Wales, Scotland and other English-speaking countries. Things are different there.

The first (more southern European) influenced the accents of the south of England.
It also provided the vocabulary of "the court", aristocracy, academics, the law etc. (Latin and French were more common than English for some centuries. Authorities can't agree on the date when the aristocracy changed from "French, with English as a second language" to "English, with French as a second language" - but all agree that it's between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Therefore longer 'Romance' words sound formal, unemotional, academic, 'distanced', 'aristocratic'.

The second (more northern European) influenced the accents of the north of England.
It also provided the vocabulary of the common people throughout England.
Therefore shorter Anglo-Saxon/Norse words sound "common", "personal", "in-your-face", "down-to-Earth".
In earlier centuries particularly, many of these words were considered 'crude', uneducated and "not fit for gentile ears". The term "four-letter-word" was used to mean "impolite, vulgar and obscene" - "Good" words had to be at least two syllables, if not three.

BUT - most people are not aristocratic, academic lawyers.
"Natural English" tends to be informal.
English intended to appeal to the emotions tends to use shorter words, rather than long words or phrases ("grab" rather than "take hold of", "ruin" rather than "destroy", "break" rather than "dismantle").

Romany
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 7:36:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,686
Neurons: 57,287
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Well my answer, wearing my 'linguistic historian' cap, would be that yes, one could simplify things by explaining that the centuries-long development of contemporary English has, since the eleventh century, been influenced by the "Romance" languages. However, that did not become a mainstream influence on the English language until a few centuries had gone by: it's main influence not affecting the language until around the 17th century. While etymological dictionaries will put the emergence of a word down to the 12th or 14th century, this doesn't mean it was in general use or even known of by English-speakers; merely a tiny subsection og the "educated" class.

Because so many of the preserved documents we have until that time were written in Latin & then in Norman French (a different language again to 'Parisian' French) it would be easy to assume that this was indicative of the way English was spoken.

However, the English language continued to be a mixture of , as you indicated, the "Old" languages of the Celts, Saxons, Frisians and Norsemen reflecting the geographical areas in which various groups had settled. The Danelaw itself can be said to have been one of the main "streams" of influence. The language of the Law, and of Court - affected less than 10% of the English population.

The aspect of English that crept into the language from the 11th century, however, is an aspect which, even now, affects English-speakers...class.

Education, being still in the hands of the Church, was conducted in Latin - so anyone who was educated spoke Latin.In order to be able to read, translate, disperse points of law or Court edict, a knowledge of both standard and Norman French was also required.Thus, while the population spoke one way, the educated, the well-born, spoke a different one. And to some extent, that trope still applies:- it's still loosely - if unconsciously - assumed that the well-educated speak a "better" kind of English to the vox populi.

In the film "My Fair Lady" Professor Higgins has the line "Every time an Englishman speaks he makes some other Englishman despise him." one of the most sardonic- and true at that time - lines in the play.

Thus we come to the 19thCentury when Education became mandatory...and the canes came out to drum into pupils the "better", "educated" "socially acceptable" way to speak English. To this day - though we no longer judge people because of it - a couple of minutes conversation with a stranger, or the scanning of a letter someone has written, reveals their education and background.

This aspect of what we call, for convenience on this site, "BE" (there is actually no such language as "British English"), is one that, though not detailed in text books or lesson plans, still plays a big part in learning English. It's also the reason we say to students that, while something may be grammatical, or perfectly understandable "We just wouldn't say it."
WeaselADAPT
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:11:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2014
Posts: 366
Neurons: 87,036
Location: Kentwood, Michigan, United States
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
WeaselADAPT wrote:
. . . Join us today in the fight against narcoterrorism!

Yeah Brother! (oops - is that a bit un-British?)

..LOL Who cares, mate?!

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
The suggested alternative uses "unleashed" as a lone participle, separated from the main sentence (which makes it more noticeable) and uses the active "is destroying and ruining", which impinge acceptably.

...Why, thank you for noticing, kind Sir or Ma'am!

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I hope this helps.

...It most indubitably has!

the Weasel
Dukul
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 11:05:55 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2020
Posts: 314
Neurons: 5,422
Location: Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Thanks to all of you 💖
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 1:07:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,403
Neurons: 227,927
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
WeaselADAPT wrote:
. . .


Dancing

It's "mate" or anything vaguely masculine.
I don't complain about "Sir" (I know it's good manners in the USA), but it's usually reserved for a senior officer of some sort over here. The police call the public "Sir" because they're public servants. Ratings call officers "Sir" and schoolkids (sometimes) call teachers "Sir".
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.