eggcracker
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- Japan
- Current Location
- South Korea
Can I use "~was native to some place" even though subject is not animal or plant?
I learned I can use "a native of~" when referring to "person".
But I learned that I should use "native to~" when I refer to "animal or plant".
By the way, I found quite confusing sentence from my book which doesn't correspond to what I schooled.
Please give me some explanation about this sentence below.
"After United States took over Louisiana, the Creole cultural identity became a means of distinguishing who was truly native to Louisiana."
The word "who" in the above sentence is not "plant or animal". And I looked up the word "native" again in my dictionary, it says "Plants or animal that are native to a particular region live or grow there naturally and were not brought there."
I'm really confusing now. Is the sentence "After United States took over Louisiana, the Creole cultural identity became a means of distinguishing who was truly native to Louisiana." grammatical?
I learned I can use "a native of~" when referring to "person".
But I learned that I should use "native to~" when I refer to "animal or plant".
By the way, I found quite confusing sentence from my book which doesn't correspond to what I schooled.
Please give me some explanation about this sentence below.
"After United States took over Louisiana, the Creole cultural identity became a means of distinguishing who was truly native to Louisiana."
The word "who" in the above sentence is not "plant or animal". And I looked up the word "native" again in my dictionary, it says "Plants or animal that are native to a particular region live or grow there naturally and were not brought there."
I'm really confusing now. Is the sentence "After United States took over Louisiana, the Creole cultural identity became a means of distinguishing who was truly native to Louisiana." grammatical?