 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / October 2009punctuation
Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following sentence? "Because this company is too small--it has about 8 persons in the company—it therefore is not considered to be a multinational enterprise." Thannks fyfpoon@gmail.com filted: >Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following sentence? > >"Because this company is too small--it has about 8 persons in the >company=97it therefore is not considered to be a multinational >enterprise." Yes...there needs to be another double hyphen after the offset phrase to match the one before it....r  SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > fyfp...@gmail.com filted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes...there needs to be another double hyphen after the offset phrase to match > the one before it....r Or both punctuation marks should be em dashes. As far as the wording goes, "in the company" and "therefore" need to be deleted, and I think the sentence would be better if "to be" were deleted too. I'd also prefer "employs" to "has". -- Jerry Friedman Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following sentence? "Because this company is too small--it has about 8 persons in the company—it therefore is not considered to be a multinational enterprise." Thannks ================================================================== Puncuation aside, if the 8 employees arebased in several countries it would be considered multi-national. It's the location of the company branchs and not the size that matters. > <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be considered multi-national. > It's the location of the company branchs and not the size that matters. I know that but I am looking at the grammar part. > Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following sentence? > > "Because this company is too small--it has about 8 persons in the > company—it therefore is not considered to be a multinational > enterprise." There's a lot wrong with the wording. "it has about 8 persons in the company" needs to be something like "there are about 8 people in the company". One of "Because" and "therefore" is wrong - you only need that sense of one thing depending on another once in the sentence. And the final clause needs an "it" in it. Once you've fixed that then - as long a you balance the dashes (you've got one double -- presumably an m-dash -- and one single) you're OK - although you could use brackets (parentheses) just as well. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu On 28 Oct 2009, Nick wrote >> Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following >> sentence? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > another once in the sentence. And the final clause needs an > "it" in it. It has that -- "it therefore is not considered" -- but I'd not split the "it" and "is not" like that. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Oct 2009, Nick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It has that -- "it therefore is not considered" -- but I'd not split > the "it" and "is not" like that. So it has - it has split it so well I didn't even see it. The double space there didn't help either. "It therefore is not" works as part of a particular style, but I agree it's not the best thing here. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > On 28 Oct 2009, Nick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It has that -- "it therefore is not considered" -- but I'd not split > > the "it" and "is not" like that. Curiously, had I written that, I would have put the "therefore" after the "is" Or at the start. As in, "it is therefore not.." "Therefore, it is not..." I don't know why, but I find that "it therefore is..." seems very odd. > So it has - it has split it so well I didn't even see it. The double > space there didn't help either. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Online waterways route planner:http://canalplan.org.uk > development version:http://canalplan.eu On 30 Oct 2009, aquachimp wrote > On Oct 28, 9:55 am, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > after the "is" Or at the start. > As in, "it is therefore not.." "Therefore, it is not..." The second one would be my choice -- as I said, I'd not split the "it" and the "is not". > I don't know why, but I find that "it therefore is..." seems > very odd. I don't really find "it is therefore not" much better than "it therefore is not". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed fyfpoon@gmail.com skrev: > Anything incorrect about the punctuation in the following sentence? > > "Because this company is too small--it has about 8 persons in the > company—it therefore is not considered to be a multinational > enterprise." Why make things complicated? "This company is too small to be considered a multinational enterprise - it employs only 8 people." And like someone already pointed out, the number of employees has nothing to do with being multinational or not. SignatureZ i n g o - at the beach with the talibans |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.