Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Correct?

  1. #11
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Correct?

    The author says in the third sentence “If that is true, today’s double ring ceremonies fittingly express the recent equality of the sexes.”
    Before the situation became like that, I think, two millennia had been needed since Roman era ,when earlier than the second century A.D. “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.”
    I think the second would in #8 is grammatically wrong but the author might have emphasized that it would happen in the future. It is difficult for Japanese to understand would correctly. I have been studying it and I want to understand it. I really appretiate your help. Arigatou gozaimasu

  2. #12
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Correct?

    I would write "two millenia would pass before that civil attitude reemerged."

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Correct?

    First, before you opt for the second alternative, the one without would, take another look at the timelines here, then the tenses in the last paragraph:

    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.

  4. #14
    Progress is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Correct?

    Yes. I have read it again and again. I think "earlier centuries" can be taken two different way: one is earlear than the particular century and another is like oleder people, which are acually old people. In this case, I think it is the latter and means Roman era, I think. If it is earlier that a particular era, it may be earlier than the secnod century A.D. Anyway two millenia were needed before the equality of the sexes in marriage was established. I thought so.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Correct English
    By pljames in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31-Mar-2007, 01:12
  2. Confused between Don't and doesn't
    By MariaElena Shetler in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2007, 23:36
  3. correct answer
    By stunned in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2007, 05:42
  4. Please correct
    By esophea in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2006, 06:16
  5. Are All IELTS Answers Correct?
    By artast in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2005, 01:46

Posting Permissions

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