related/relevant V.S. relation/relationship

[henry]

Sorry, neither of them seem to be correct.

Try:

(1) What kind of relationship do you have with Mike?
(2) How is the relatioship between you and Mike?
(3) What is the relationship between you and Mike?

Henry, I agree with your example (1) and (3).
(2) is a bit strange for me. Do (2) and (3) the same?[/quote]


B:How is the relatioship between you and Mike?
H: Hmm, not too bad! :wink:

B:What is the relationship between you and Mike?
H:I would call it a cyberrelationship.


Examples below are from Collocations, how could it be so wrong?

==>What relation is Mike to you? ( from Oxford Cpollocations)

Sure, it is perfectly correct!

==>What's relation between you and Mike? (incorrect)
==>What relationship is Mike to you? ( from Oxford Cpollocations)
==>What's the relationship between you and Mike?(I missed 'the')





[Off topic]
Yes. "ni how ma" in Chinese means "How are you". But Chinese is a tone language. We have upper even tone(1),lower even tone(2), rising tone(3) and falling tone(4). It's more correct to say "ni(2) how(3) ma(1)"

Foreigners here learn "ni how ma" as their Lesson One.

9 out of 10 sound like ROBOTs.

You can say that again! :x

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by tdol

Mike is no relation of mine (he's not family)?

Is this answered to "What relation is Mike to you?"

Originally Posted by tdol

but I do have a relationship(friendship) with him. Does that help?

Is this to "What relationship is Mike to you?"

[RonBee]

The word robot came to us from Czecholosvakia.

:)

[blacknomi]

Mike, you're gone away this subject.


Question 3
The following sentence is from Collocations.
==>There's a close relationship between increased money supply and inflation.
If the above one is correct, why can't I say "The relationship between the war at Iraq and the price of pretrolium is obviously close."

==>There's close relation between increased money supply and inflation. ( Then, is this also correct? )

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Mike, you're gone away this subject.

Mike?

:wink:

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Question 3
The following sentence is from Collocations.
==>There's a close relationship between increased money supply and inflation.
If the above one is correct, why can't I say "The relationship between the war at Iraq and the price of pretrolium is obviously close."

I don't see why you can't say that (grammatically speaking).

Originally Posted by blacknomi

==>There's close relation between increased money supply and inflation. ( Then, is this also correct? )

I would not say that, and I would advise against it. (Some might disagree.) In my opinion, the word "relationship" is just right there, and "relation" is not an adequate substitute.

:)

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Mike, you're gone away this subject.


Question 3
The following sentence is from Collocations.
==>There's a close relationship between increased money supply and inflation.
If the above one is correct, why can't I say "The relationship between the war at Iraq and the price of pretrolium is obviously close."

==>There's close relation between increased money supply and inflation. ( Then, is this also correct? )

I'm back! I have read the rest of the discussion. I must say I'm not terribly happy with the "rules" that have been proposed to date. I think we need to look at these two words as two partially overlapping circles. There are uses of relation that are distinct from relationship and vice versa. But there is also a lot of overlap.

There is a definitely a relationship between cancer and smoking. There is also a relation between them. When the words are used for association/connection, it is difficult to find much difference.