simple question

[Casiopea]

Dear Cas,

If you have Reader's Digest at hand or you can go to your school library, and take a look at September 2004. I think we have the same version, printed at Hong Kong. Or I'll just post the context later. Class starts within 10, I gotta run now.

:D

No need to type it in. :D Click Here. The link will bring you to Reader's Digest archives. Just send us the link.

[blacknomi]

Dear Cas,

If you have Reader's Digest at hand or you can go to your school library, and take a look at September 2004. I think we have the same version, printed at Hong Kong. Or I'll just post the context later. Class starts within 10, I gotta run now.

:D

No need to type it in. :D Click Here. The link will bring you to Reader's Digest archives. Just send us the link.

(From Reader's Digest)
Many of us think we have some hadicap taht's going to keep us from getting a job: we are too fat, or too old. We have a physical handicap, a criminal record, not enough education. We are a foreigner, we're too shy; we come from a different background.


I also have a question about this sentence.

We have a physical handicap, a criminal record, not enough education.

It doesn't make sense to me that we have A, B, not enough C.
(1)We have A.
(2)We have B.
(3)We have not enough C.

For me, the grammatical structure is dissymmetric.

[A.Russell]

Looks like it was a reader's letter or something. He spelt that's wrong, too.

we is plural, so we can't be one foriegner.

Sometimes you can get away with this poetically: "we are a pimple on the face of the earth," or something like that. In that case we is being likened to something else.

We have a physical handycap...

This could be said if they all have the same handicap (that they can't tell singular from plural, for example :D ), but I think this person just has bad grammar.

[Casiopea]

Many of us think we have some hadicap taht's going to keep us from getting a job: we are too fat, or too old. We have a physical handicap, a criminal record, not enough education. We are a foreigner, we're too shy; we come from a different background.

I see. 8)
Notice the author uses "We" throughout the paragraph; It's stylistic: a matter of flow. Grammatically though, "We are a foreigner" should be "We are foreigners", but the author chooses not to use that structure, and for good reason: "We are foreigners" expresses "We" the readers as a group, but the author is trying to express "We" the readers as individuals (i.e., "We are a foreigner). In short, the author uses "We" for flow and "a foreigner" for meaning. Call it poetic license/licence. :wink:

We have a physical handicap, a criminal record, not enough education.

It doesn't make sense to me that we have A, B, not enough C.
(1)We have A.
(2)We have B.
(3)We have not enough C.

Without 'not', C would be positive:

We have a physical handicap :( , we have a criminal record :( , we have enough education :D.

With 'not', C is negative:

We have a physical handicap :( , we have a criminal record :( , we do not have enough education :( .

Note, since 'we' and 'do' and 'have' can be picked up from the context the author omits them (i.e., they are redundant elements).

All the best, :D