was by

[navi tasan]

Are these sentences correct:
1-That book was by Dickens.
2-That song was by MacCartney.
3-The assasination was by Oswald.

[Red5]

One and two are certainly correct. Number three is a little odd, but I can't think of a suggestion for it at this time.

[navi tasan]

How about "was committed by..."?

[Casiopea]

Are these sentences correct:
1-That book was by Dickens.
2-That song was by MacCartney.
3-The assassination was by Oswald.

I believe they're all fine. 3- sounds odd because of its position in the string. 'assassination' is placed after 'book' and 'song'. The latter two refers to objects (i.e. book, song), whereas the former denotes an act (assissinate). Furthermore, 3- may be awkward for some readers because of the controversy surrounding Oswald. Some believe he was a "patsy"; that he did not commit the assassination.

:D

[RonBee]

I would say, "The assassination was committed by Oswald." The original sentence seems a little odd to me. An assassination is an act and not the kind of thing that is thought of as produced by somebody, as a play, a book or a movie would be.

:)

[Tdol]

I'm still not too happy with 'commit' for an assasination. How about 'Oswald was the assassin'?

[RonBee]

I'm still not too happy with 'commit' for an assasination. How about 'Oswald was the assassin'?

What's wrong with commit there? We use commit with murder, and a murder is an assassination. Also, there is nothing wrong with "Oswald was the assassination", but it does change the form of the sentence.

[Tdol]

Commit works with murder, but sounds strange to me with assassination.

[RonBee]

By the way, I meant to say than an assassination is a murder. Of course, it is not necessarily true the other way around.

:wink:

[Tdol]

Some assasinations are possibly not. (Not this one)