is Egypt free?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Offroad

Key Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Brazilian Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
Brazil
Dear teachers

I start this thread saying that I mean no offense to anyone or any nation. I do respect them all and treat them equally. This text does express my opinion, however, I must ask those who felt insulted to ignore it as I do not intend to discuss politics here.

I just want to know if this text is correct English.

After following headlines of a few widely read online newspapers, it is impossible not to mention the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarack, from The Telegraph to The New York Times. It can be easily noticed the pressure put forth by USA on the ‘step down’ by Mr. Mubarack. Of course, the Egyptian nation is now celebrating a huge victory; no nation should be ruled by a single man for more than four or eight years, let alone three decades. But it raises more questions: What next? Are Egypt ready to create a new order? Why are USA meddling? Is it because they are the most qualified to advice on what to do next? Egypt had better not think so. Is this going to happen to other countries in the Middle East where there is dictatorship? Unlikely, otherwise, how are USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no fanatic group to sell guns to?

Many thanks

Offroad
 
Last edited:

euncu

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
Others will help you out for the entire text but while I was reading your text, the first thing that struck my eyes was your use of the acronym "USA" as plural. I googled this and I found this following article from the net;

BBC Serbian | Questions about English

I'd use it as "The (you missed this one too) USA is... " but I believe that some of our native-speaker members will enlighten us about this.
 

Offroad

Key Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Brazilian Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
Brazil
Others will help you out for the entire text but while I was reading your text, the first thing that struck my eyes was your use of the acronym "USA" as plural. I googled this and I found this following article from the net;

BBC Serbian | Questions about English

I'd use it as "The (you missed this one too) USA is... " but I believe that some of our native-speaker members will enlighten us about this.

I prefer the plural form, like in 'Brazil play Turkey tonight', 'USA play England'
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
No nation should be ruled by a single man for more than four or eight years,- I would change man to person, after all look at who's in charge of your country now. Also there's a considerable difference between four and eight, so the statement seems to undermine itself- I would set a single top limit if that is what you mean..
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I prefer the plural form, like in 'Brazil play Turkey tonight', 'USA play England'
"Are Egypt ready to create a new order?" sounds very strange, as does "USA are ..."
I don't think you can generalise from football players to ... er, what are you generalising to?
 

Offroad

Key Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Brazilian Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
Brazil
"Are Egypt ready to create a new order?" sounds very strange, as does "USA are ..."
I don't think you can generalise from football players to ... er, what are you generalising to?
I meant the government. The whole team.
 

Coolfootluke

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I am not a teacher.

After following headlines of a few widely read online newspapers, it is impossible not to mention the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarack, from The Telegraph to The New York Times.

Garbled. I can only guess at the meaning: Having followed the headlines in a few widely read online newspapers, from The Telegraph to The New York Times, I find it impossible not to mention the resignation of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarack.


It can be easily noticed the pressure put forth by USA on the ‘step down’ by Mr. Mubarack.

Trying to keep as many of your words and locutions as possible: One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down.


Of course, the Egyptian nation is now celebrating a huge victory; no nation should be ruled by a single man for more than four or eight years, let alone three decades.

Tdol is right; "man" should be "person". The semicolon is sagging. "Of course" comes out of nowhere. "Huge" is cliche, and "victory" is empty. Maybe: The Egyptian nation is now celebrating a victory of the populace over the powermonger; no nation should be ruled by a single person for more than four or eight years, let alone three decades. [I am ignoring the politics, too, but it is a tad ironic that you decry meddling by the US and then use their presidential term limits in your argument. That's just a copyeditor's observation.]


But it raises more questions: What next? Are Egypt ready to create a new order? Why are USA meddling? Is it because they are the most qualified to advice on what to do next? Egypt had better not think so.

Countries are thought of as entities, not collectives, in English on both sides of the Atlantic and are therefore grammatically singular. But we do rather carelessly switch to "they" or "we" when we feel like it. As before: But new questions arise: What comes next? Is Egypt ready to create a new order? Why is the USA meddling? Is it because they are the most qualified to advise on what to do next? Egypt had better not think so.


Is this going to happen to other countries in the Middle East where there is dictatorship? Unlikely, otherwise, how are USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no fanatic group to sell guns to?

"Otherwise" is unnecessary with the contrapuntal argument. "Fanatic" can technically be used there, but the reader trips over it, wondering whether the adjectival form "fanatical" wouldn't be better and then realizing that it wouldn't. Try: Is this going to happen to other countries in the Middle East where there is dictatorship? Unlikely, because how is the USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no extremist group to sell guns to? [Another substantive note, if you don't mind. Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers; you seem to be taking as self-evident aspects of American foreign policy that are not. Even when you preach to the choir, you should say what you mean.]

 

Khosro

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
I am not a teacher.

Trying to keep as many of your words and locutions as possible: One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down.


Of course, the Egyptian nation is now celebrating a huge victory; no nation should be ruled by a single man for more than four or eight years, let alone three decades.

Tdol is right; "man" should be "person". The semicolon is sagging. "Of course" comes out of nowhere. "Huge" is cliche, and "victory" is empty. Maybe: The Egyptian nation is now celebrating a victory of the populace over the powermonger; no nation should be ruled by a single person for more than four or eight years, let alone three decades. [I am ignoring the politics, too, but it is a tad ironic that you decry meddling by the US and then use their presidential term limits in your argument. That's just a copyeditor's observation.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this going to happen to other countries in the Middle East where there is dictatorship? Unlikely, otherwise, how are USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no fanatic group to sell guns to?

[Another substantive note, if you don't mind. Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers; you seem to be taking as self-evident aspects of American foreign policy that are not. Even when you preach to the choir, you should say what you mean.]


About the first part:
1- It's not really ironic as far as four or eight years is not considered american "presidential term limits".
2- But "One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down." is ambigious. Is it good? is it bad? And apart from being good or bad, what is the quality and truth of it? The writer does not take sides. Some consider it an advantage, I dont.

About the second part:
"Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers". Is coolfootluce right about it?
 

Offroad

Key Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Brazilian Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
Brazil
pressure exerted by USA
pressure put forth by USA


Why is the former preferable?

Thanks
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
About the second part:
"Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers". Is coolfootluce right about it?
I don't agree with it. The basic problem seems to be the relativity of obviousness.
 

Coolfootluke

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
pressure exerted by USA
pressure put forth by USA

Why is the former preferable?

Thanks

The meaning of "put forth" is wrong. Pressure was not offered.
 

mayita1usa

Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
It can be easily noticed the pressure put forth by USA on the ‘step down’ by Mr. Mubarack.

Trying to keep as many of your words and locutions as possible: One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down.
The word "behind" seems unnecessary in this context; I suggest:
One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA on Mr. Mubarak to step down.

@Offroad: "Exerted on... by..." (not "put forth") is the standard collocation, for no particular reason that I'm aware of other than a history of usage.

Try: Is this going to happen to other countries in the Middle East where there is dictatorship? Unlikely, because how is the USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no extremist group to sell guns to? [Another substantive note, if you don't mind. Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers; you seem to be taking as self-evident aspects of American foreign policy that are not. Even when you preach to the choir, you should say what you mean.]
1 - If the USA is considered a singular entity (as I agree it should be), then the correct pronoun is its.

2 - (I deleted my original response here because I realized I was referring to the wrong part of offroad's first post. I now refer to Raymott's excellent post on the subject, and reiterate the notion that rhetorical questions are not required to have an "obvious answer" in order to be used correctly or effectively. In this case, the effect is sarcasm, which seems to be the author's intent. MT)
 
Last edited:

mayita1usa

Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
About the first part:
1- It's not really ironic as far as four or eight years is not considered american "presidential term limits".
Thank you for your global perspective! :)

2- But "One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down." is ambigious. Is it good? is it bad? And apart from being good or bad, what is the quality and truth of it? The writer does not take sides. Some consider it an advantage, I dont.
I think the writer's opinion on the issue becomes clear later in the passage (and he agrees with you). Also, the tone of the sentence, particularly the words "easily" and "pressure", tells me that he doesn't approve.

About the second part:
"Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers". Is coolfootluce right about it?
As I wrote in my previous post, I disagree with coolfootluce on his analysis of this part of the original passage.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
About the second part:
"Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers". Is coolfootluce right about it?

"A rhetorical question is one that requires no answer because the answer is obvious and doesn't need to be stated . The speaker (of the rhetorical question) is not looking for an answer but is making some kind of a point, as in an argument."
Rhetorical Question - Glossary Definition - UsingEnglish.com

"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (e.g.: "Why me?")[1] Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be."
Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most definitions say that the answer of a rhetorical question is obvious, but as seen in the above WIkipedia example, it needn't be. If a person who develops cancer asks their friend, "Why me?", they don't expect an answer, but the answer is still not obvious, just unanswerable (unless you're a lifelong smoker and you have lung cancer).

This site has some more examples, the answer to which is not obvious. The question is sometimes put to state a philosophical problem, such as, "Who is John Galt?" in Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
rhetorical question - definition and examples of rhetorical questions

An example:
Grandma Simpson and Lisa are singing Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" ("How many roads must a man walk down/Before you call him a man?"). Homer overhears and says, "Eight!"
Lisa: "That was a rhetorical question!"
Homer: "Oh. Then, seven!"
Lisa: "Do you even know what 'rhetorical' means?"
Homer: "Do I know what 'rhetorical' means?"
(The Simpsons, "When Grandma Simpson Returns")
 

Khosro

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
I think the writer's opinion on the issue becomes clear later in the passage (and he agrees with you). Also, the tone of the sentence, particularly the words "easily" and "pressure", tells me that he doesn't approve.

QUOTE]

Yes you are right. That was a (quick? I don't remember the adjective) comment of me. Still the writer could have brought up that first sentence about America in some other place in the text.

About "global prespective" I could talk much more if we were not in a language learning forum. My comment on footcoolluce sentence about "their presidential term limits" was just the peak of an iceburg.

Thank you for your posts about rhetorical questions.
 

Coolfootluke

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
About the first part:
1- It's not really ironic as far as four or eight years is not considered american "presidential term limits".
2- But "One can easily see the pressure exerted by the USA behind Mr. Mubarack's stepping down." is ambigious. Is it good? is it bad? And apart from being good or bad, what is the quality and truth of it? The writer does not take sides. Some consider it an advantage, I dont.

About the second part:
"Rhetorical questions must have obvious answers". Is coolfootluce right about it?

1. If America is to be dragged into this to the exclusion of the countless other countries who have weighed in, the exact correspondence with its presidential terms becomes relevant. The knowledgeable reader who does not come to this with a chip on his shoulder about America will not fail to notice that 4 and 8 are not the norm for presidents. The strong propagandistic strain in the piece under review is at variance with those numbers for that reason. I make no judgements about the validity of the viewpoint, I am simply saying that to mention numbers that conjure American ideals hamstrings the argument somewhat.

2. I did not address every infelicity and weakness. Truth be told, I think it's all crap, but I'm here to help a fellow seeker after knowledge get his English straightened out, not to argue politics or religion. We can deal with the other stuff after we've gotten acquainted, and we can do it somewhere else.

As a matter of style, if you are going to wing a rhetorical and leave it unanswered, the reader must be able to immediately fill the void. Otherwise, the reader is left saying to himself, "Huh?" That is not good communication. Taking the final sentence: How are USA going to keep their imperialism if there is no fanatic group to sell guns to? Ummm ... what? The unsaid answer is supposed to be "They can't", but given that the supplied conditions are to say the least debateable, that the USA has imperialism to keep and that selling guns to fanatics is a way to do that, and that even granting those premises there are myriad ways to practice imperialism, the rhetorical question becomes asinine posturing. This is a matter of style.
 

Offroad

Key Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Brazilian Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
Brazil
The meaning of "put forth" is wrong. Pressure was not offered.
Hi teacher, thank you for your efforts, however, I can't understand why 'put forth' can not be synonym with 'exert', this dictionary says it can, if I am not mistaken:

put forth 1. To grow: Plants put forth new growth in the spring.
2. To bring to bear; exert: At least put forth a semblance of effort when you scrub the floor.
3. To offer for consideration: put forth an idea.

put forth - definition of put forth by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Thanks
 

euncu

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
I'd use "put in" with the word "effort" in a sentence such as the one below;

"I can't say how grateful I am for all the effort you have put in.."
 

Coolfootluke

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Hi teacher, thank you for your efforts, however, I can't understand why 'put forth' can not be synonym with 'exert', this dictionary says it can, if I am not mistaken:

put forth 1. To grow: Plants put forth new growth in the spring.
2. To bring to bear; exert: At least put forth a semblance of effort when you scrub the floor.
3. To offer for consideration: put forth an idea.

put forth - definition of put forth by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Thanks
Interesting. Thanks for that. The dictionaries I consulted do not list that definition, and it is not in my vocabulary. Anyway, "forth" is kind of old fashioned. But I withdraw my objection to "put forth" there if you think it is better.

By the way, I am not a teacher.
 
Last edited:

Khosro

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
Well Coolfootluce! What you wrote in your first reply (that specific part) was in my opinion ideologically wrong. Though you might say that it had nothing to do with ideology. For ideologicall reasons I do not approve of the Offroad's text either but I consider it an English-learner-text.

What you said was simply against my ideology.Ideology matters, specially in a public place, so I had to response, which I did. Now I have done my job and it's finished. You can consider this post as my response to your second reply. I am not going to go on with this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top