Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: About omission

  1. #1
    wolfand is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Korean
      • Home Country:
      • South Korea
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    About omission

    I got confused when I have to omit repeated words, as follows.



    1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

    -In above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Is the above sentence correct?


    2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

    -Also, above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65."
    Is the above sentence correct?

  2. #2
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,945
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfand View Post
    I got confused when I have to omit repeated words, as follows.



    1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

    -In above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Is the above sentence correct?

    Yes, it's relatively unambiguous (depending of course on the sentence previous to that one). It's also logically consistent since it compares 70% interest, 18% career, and there's only one age group mentioned. It would be a strange sentence if it ended " ... in the under 49yr group", because that wouldn't be a comparison at all.

    2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

    -Also, above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65."
    Unambiguous. What do you think it could mean?
    Is the above sentence correct?
    Not really. It probably means, "three times as great". Otherwise it's correct.
    R.

  3. #3
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfand View Post
    1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

    -In the above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Yes
    Is the above sentence correct? Some people might prefer 'who study' to 'studying', but I think your sentence is fine.


    2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

    -Also, the above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65." It would be very tedious to have to read what you have omitted.
    Is the above sentence correct?
    I don't think many people would have a problem with it. If you want to avoid upsetting the pedants, try:

    The heart attack rate is found to be greater in women aged 65 and above than in women aged 40-65.

    or even

    The heart attack rate in women is found to be greater in those aged 65+ than (in) those aged 40-65
    5

  4. #4
    wolfand is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Korean
      • Home Country:
      • South Korea
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    R.
    Thank you so much! What you gave me would be a realy great help!

  5. #5
    wolfand is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Korean
      • Home Country:
      • South Korea
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Thank you for your answering.

    But, I have a furtherquestion about your answer.

    The reason you corrected the original sentence "The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65. " into

    "The heart attack rate in women is found to be greater in those aged 65+ than (in) those aged 40-65" is that I have to place "in women aged" nearby "than in women aged 40-65" ?

    If so, that is a kind of absolute rule? or just for reader's comprehension?
    Was the original sentence incorrect?

  6. #6
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfand View Post

    you corrected the original sentence "The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65. " [...]

    If so, that is a kind of absolute rule? or just for reader's comprehension?
    Was the original sentence incorrect?
    I didn't intend to give the impression that I was 'correcting' it. I was suggesting a way to remove any possibility of ambiguity - and there wasn't much in the first place.

    There is no kind of absolute rule, merely general advice to make your writing as unambiguous as possible.

    The original sentence was correct, IMO.

    Incidentally, Ray and I posted almost sinultaneously. Though his answers are slightly different from mine, I am very happy with them. If he had posted earlier, I would not have written at all.

  7. #7
    wolfand is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Korean
      • Home Country:
      • South Korea
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: About omission

    Quote Originally Posted by fivejedjon View Post
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by fivejedjon View Post
    I didn't intend to give the impression that I was 'correcting' it. I was suggesting a way to remove any possibility of ambiguity - and there wasn't much in the first place.
    Thank you for your follow-up answer.

    In fact, every piece of sentence or corrections is really valuable and helpful for me. So, I always try to dwell on others' comments. Actually, without enough considering, I tend to misunderstood.

Similar Threads

  1. [Grammar] (that) that? omission of that?
    By atssarbia in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18-May-2010, 01:06
  2. [Grammar] omission
    By LQZ in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-Dec-2009, 16:28
  3. [Grammar] Question about omission (I don't know if it's even called omission)
    By HaraKiriBlade in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2009, 13:56
  4. [Grammar] about omission
    By sws1234 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Mar-2009, 15:33
  5. about omission of who
    By alan in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-Sep-2004, 16:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •