[Grammar] is who will take the risk

Hi,

Background:
Kid investment plan A: Mother needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.

Kid investment plan B: Father needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.


Question:
Can I use "is who will take the risk"?


Sentence:
The difference between 2 plans is who will take the risk of paying extra money.


Thanks

I think you can say that. Also:
The difference between 2 plans is who takes the risk of paying extra money.

I am not a teacher.

uktous said:

Hi,

Background:
Kid investment plan A: Mother needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.

Kid investment plan B: Father needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.


Question:
Can I use "is who will take the risk"?
Yes.

Sentence:
The difference between the two plans is who will take the risk of paying the extra money.
Yes, that's OK

Thanks

Click to expand...

R

Is 'the' before 'extra money' obligatory?

mmasny said:

Is 'the' before 'extra money' obligatory?

Click to expand...

No. To tell you the truth, I do not feel the need for 'the'. The reference of "extra money" has not been specified in the preceding context so I think it correct to leave the reference unaccounted for.

corum said:

No. To tell you the truth, I do not feel the need for 'the'. The reference of "extra money" has not been specified in the preceding context so I think it correct to leave the reference unaccounted for.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're right. I agree with Raymott that this 'the' can and probably should be there. But I think it's still OK without it (maybe sounds a little bit awkward).
PS: And thanks for telling me the truth ;-)

mmasny said:

I'm not sure you're right. I agree with Raymott that this 'the' can and probably should be there. But I think it's still OK without it (maybe sounds a little bit awkward).
PS: And thanks for telling me the truth ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, the extra money has been referred to, because we know that either the mother or the father will it. Will pay what?

mmasny said:

PS: And thanks for telling me the truth ;-)

Click to expand...

Thanks for your wry sarcasm. ;-)

Raymott said:

Well, the extra money has been referred to,

Click to expand...

Referred to as what?

Father needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.

Click to expand...

$100 has nothing to do with extra money.

corum said:

Referred to as what?

Click to expand...

It was referred to as extra money.

mmasny said:

It was referred to as extra money.

Click to expand...

so no 'the' needed. Thanks, masny.

The "the" is far better.

The money = the money needed to bring the account up to $100 again.

It's a specific reference to the specific amount of money referred to earlier.

(Unless the parents are divorced, it's hard to imagine such plans!)

Barb_D said:

The "the" is far better.

The money = the money needed to bring the account up to $100 again.
.

Click to expand...

Mother needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.

Click to expand...

In the quoted part, extra money does not mean the money that is needed to bring the balance back to $100.

What other meaning could it possibly have?

And even if it didn't, "the extra money" has already been defined as "the extra money that X would need to pay if the balance dropped below $100"

Mother needs to pay extra money if the investment account balance drops below $100.

Click to expand...

In the quoted part, extra money does not mean the money that is needed to bring the balance back to $100.

Click to expand...

That quote you've given can't exist. If it did, you'd have to acknowledge that 'money' has been referred to, and that the last line of the original post refers back to it, and should therefore be "the money."
QED.

Barb_D said:

What other meaning could it possibly have?

Click to expand...

an undefined amount of penalty cost? Undefined because of peripheral concern?

Barb_D said:

And even if it didn't, "the extra money" has already been defined as "the extra money that X would need to pay if the balance dropped below $100"

Click to expand...

There is no "the extra money" in the OP's post. There is "extra money" there. Extra money in the OP's quote means simply the fact that you have to pay something, an undefined amount of money.

That is how I see this matter, and I would not like our disagreement to develop into something not very nice. I hope you guys allow me not to play the servile and obsequious yes man who takes natives' opinion as the gospel truth in all circumstances. I think this attitude of mine has brought me to this level from zero level, learning English on my tod, in 7 years.

Okay, use articles as you wish.

I'm not going to try convince you.