Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Correct?

  1. #1
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Correct?

    The origin and significance of the wedding ring is much disputed. One school of thought maintains that the modern ring is symbolic of the fetters used by uncivilized peoples to tie a bride to her husband’s home. If that is true, today’s double ring ceremonies fittingly express the recent equality of the sexes.
    The other school of thought focuses on the first actual bands exchanged in a marriage ceremony. A finger ring was first used in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, around 2800 B.C. To the Egyptians, a circle, having no beginning or end, signified eternity – for which marriage was binding.
    Rings of gold were the most highly valued by wealthy Egyptians, and later Romans. Among numerous two-thousand-year-old rings dug up at the site of Pompeii is one of a unique design that would become popular throughout Europe centuries later, and in America in the ‘60s and ‘70s. That gold marriage ring which has survived to this day (of the type now called a friendship ring) has two carved hands clasped in a handshake.
    There is evidence that young Roman men of moderate financial means often spent all their money for their future brides. One Christian priest, writing in the second century A.D., observed that “most women know nothing of gold except the single marriage ring placed on one finger.” In public, the average Roman house wife proudly wore her gold band, but at home, according to the priest, she “wore a ring of iron.”
    In earlier centuries, a ring’s design often carried meaning. Several Roman bands which exist today bear a miniature key on them. Not that the key sentimentally suggested a bride had unlocked her husband’s heart. Rather, it symbolized a central principle of the marriage contract: that a wife was entitled to half her husband’s wealth, and that she could, at will, help herself to a bag of grain, a roll of linen, or whatever rested in his store house. Two millennia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge.

    I have several questions and would like to make sure if my thought is correct or not.

    #1 Does is much disputed mean “there are currently many arguments and discussion about that?”
    #2 Does One school of thought and The other school of thought mean a group of people having the same opinion on one issue? In this case, there are two groups having the opinions about the origin of the wedding ring
    #3 Are bands finger rings in this case?
    #4 Does which in for which suggest eternity? So dose it mean “marriage was binding for eternity?”.
    #5 Why is one of a unique design not “one of unique designs?”
    #6 Is “That gold marriage ring has two carved hands clasped in a handshake” “That gold marriage ring has two carved hands which are(will be) clasped in a handshake?
    #7 Is the expression In earlier centuries common? Probably in this case, it means Roman era but why earlier, compared to what?
    #8 What does would mean in “Two millennia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge?”
    I think the first would mean the sentence “Two millennia will pass before that civil attitude reemerge” become past tense. Seeing from the point of past, it happened in the future. I mean, I think you can write it as “Two millennia had passed before that civil attitude reemerged?”
    Why is the second would used? I think it is wrong because in the adverbial clause you cannot use the future will even for expressing future things.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    Hello, Progress. I can help with #1 through #6:

    #1 There are currently many arguments and discussion about that?

    #2 Two group of people holding different opinions on one issue.

    #3 Are bands rings (for fingers) in this case?

    #4 Marriage was binding for eternity.

    #5 One of a unique design

    #6 Is That gold marriage ring which ... has two carved hands (that/which are) clasped in a handshake.
    (Note, the author is using which restrictively, so either that or which could work in the reduced relative clause (...).

  3. #3
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    Thank you very much Cassiopea

    As for #5, why you don't say one of unique designs? Is it for the word unique?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    The alternative One of unique designs means a ring having more than one design on it, whereas one of a unique design, means a ring with a specific design.

    Does that help?

  5. #5
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    Yes. Oh I see. I misunderstood it. one of a unique design means a ring having a unique design, not a uniquely designed ring among uniquely designed rings

    I would like to ask you about #8 in a different way. Does “Two millennia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge” sound natural and make sense to you?
    I think the first would is used to express the future thing viewing from the past event. I think the sentence means historically there were time when women were not treated equally for about two thousand years after that and then reemerged. Is my understanding correct?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Progress View Post
    I would like to ask you about #8 in a different way. Does “Two millennia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge” sound natural and make sense to you?
    Sounds perfectly fine to me, and your understanding is correct.

    would - Definitions from Dictionary.com

  7. #7
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    THANK YOU VERY MUCH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.

    and #8 sounds literarily effective, right?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Progress View Post
    THANK YOU VERY MUCH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.

    and #8 sounds literarily effective, right?
    You're most welcome.

    What do you mean by literarily effective?

  9. #9
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    I meant, compared to saying that ,for example, two millenia had passed before that civil attitude reemerged, stating the fact simply, "two millenia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge" soulds like a part of a grand story.
    Incidentally, is the second would necessary or CAN you omitt it and then does it make sense? Does the second would also mean "future in the past?" And if it is not used, how different does the sentense sound?

    Thanks again

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Correct?

    To my understanding, the author is still talking about a specific time in the past, and so uses would to express this,

    Two millenia hasn't passed yet, so that civil attitude hasn't yet reemerged, but it will, and it does.
    Ex: Two millenia would pass before that civil attitude would reemerge.
    Ex: Two millenia would pass before that civil attitude reemerge.
    I prefer the parallel structured one. The reason being, another verb, say had, could be depoisted where the verb is dropped, and that would change the meaning of the sentence:

    Ex: Two millenia would pass before that civil attitude had reemerge.

    What are your thoughts?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Correct English
    By pljames in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31-Mar-2007, 00:12
  2. Confused between Don't and doesn't
    By MariaElena Shetler in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2007, 22:36
  3. correct answer
    By stunned in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2007, 04:42
  4. Please correct
    By esophea in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2006, 05:16
  5. Are All IELTS Answers Correct?
    By artast in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2005, 00:46

Posting Permissions

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