traces of red and sickly green

Status
Not open for further replies.

羡鱼-Xianyu

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
It was as clear as daylight to me that there had been an intruder, and not necessarily a thief. As I flashed my torch around the room, I spotted traces of red and sickly green on the walls and furniture, and I went cold.

Dear all,
Can I use 'red and sickly green traces' to substitute for the part in bold without changing the meaning?

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!:)

Xianyu
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
羡鱼-Xianyu;606548 said:
It was as clear as daylight to me that there had been an intruder, and not necessarily a thief. As I flashed my torch around the room, I spotted traces of red and sickly green on the walls and furniture, and I went cold.

Dear all,
Can I use 'red and sickly green traces' to substitute for the part in bold without changing the meaning?

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!:)

Xianyu

I would say no. There's a danger that if you said "I spotted red and sickly green traces..." it could be misunderstood as "I spotted red and I spotted sickly green traces". Obviously "I spotted red" makes no sense.

In this context, we generally use it in the order it was originally given. "I saw traces of blood on the walls" not "I saw blood traces..."

Whilst normally it would be "trace of + noun" we do say "traces of + colour". "Under the pink paint, you could see traces of blue", where it is unnecessary to specify "blue paint". In your example, it effectively means "I spotted traces of [something] red and [something] sickly green".
 

羡鱼-Xianyu

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
I would say no. There's a danger that if you said "I spotted red and sickly green traces..." it could be misunderstood as "I spotted red and I spotted sickly green traces". Obviously "I spotted red" makes no sense.

In this context, we generally use it in the order it was originally given. "I saw traces of blood on the walls" not "I saw blood traces..."

Whilst normally it would be "trace of + noun" we do say "traces of + colour". "Under the pink paint, you could see traces of blue", where it is unnecessary to specify "blue paint". In your example, it effectively means "I spotted traces of [something] red and [something] sickly green".
Good morning, emsr2d2. Thank you for your help. I've got it.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top