Results 1 to 10 of 10
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Mar 2004
    • Posts: 1,074
    #1

    related

    Do these equally sound OK?

    Scientists say that 1% of deadly infections are related to this kind of creature.
    Scientists say that 1% of deadly infections are concerned with this kind of creature.

  1. emsr2d2's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 41,912
    #2

    Re: related

    Quote Originally Posted by Taka View Post
    Do these equally sound OK?

    Scientists say that 1% of deadly infections are related to this kind of creature.
    Scientists say that 1% of deadly infections are concerned with this kind of creature.
    I don't think either of them sounds natural.

    Is it supposed to mean that "this kind of creature" is the cause of 1% of deadly infections?
    Does it mean that 1% of all deadly infections are suffered by this kind of creature?

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Mar 2004
    • Posts: 1,074
    #3

    Re: related

    This is what I have. You don't think it's natural?

    Most of the newly emerging infections which have been transmitted from animals to humans come from livestock. Only about 5 % of them have been found to be related to bats

    You don't think it's possible to replace 'be related to' with 'be concerned with'?
    Last edited by Taka; 10-Feb-2012 at 01:20.

  2. 5jj's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Oct 2010
    • Posts: 28,134
    #4

    Re: related

    Quote Originally Posted by Taka View Post
    This is what I have. You don't think it's natural:
    The sentences below are not what emsr2d said sounded unnatural. Your original sentences, without further context, are unclear.

    Most of the newly emerging infections which have been transmitted from animals to humans come from livestock. Only about 5 % of them have been found to be related to bats

    You don't think it's possible to replace 'be related to' with 'be concerned with'? No.
    5

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Mar 2004
    • Posts: 1,074
    #5

    Re: related

    So the first one with 'be related to' is not unnatural but unclear. It needs further context.

    And the last one I presented is OK.

    But it's not possible to replace 'be related to' with 'be concerned with' anyway.

    RIght?
    Last edited by Taka; 10-Feb-2012 at 01:04.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Mar 2004
    • Posts: 1,074
    #6

    Re: related

    Let me tell you that the point of my question is whether it's possible to use 'be concerned with' instead of 'be related to' to mean a scientific correlation between two things.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Laos

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 57,912
    #7

    Re: related

    I would say not.

  3. 5jj's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Oct 2010
    • Posts: 28,134
    #8

    Re: related

    I have already said not.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Mar 2004
    • Posts: 1,074
    #9

    Re: related

    So 'be related to' and 'be concerned with' are semantically a bit different.

    What exactly is the difference between the two?

  4. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,104
    #10

    Re: related

    Quote Originally Posted by Taka View Post
    So 'be related to' and 'be concerned with' are semantically a bit different.

    What exactly is the difference between the two?
    There's no "exact difference". The meaning of each of these phrases comes partly from the context. The difference in the context that you've given is that "be concerned with" does not signify a scientific correlation.

    Here are some more contexts:
    Secretary: "Mr Smith is on the line. He wants to talk to you.
    Boss 1. "What is it related to?
    Boss 2. "What is it concerned with?
    In this case, they mean roughly the same.

    "I'm related to Mary, since we both have the same grandparents"
    "I'm concerned with Mary, since we both have the same grandparents."
    These mean totally different things.

Similar Threads

  1. [Grammar] related
    By Pinto in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-Oct-2011, 13:53
  2. related with vs. related to
    By Yura Reiri in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2011, 14:23
  3. Use of related
    By claujuano in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-Aug-2010, 12:35
  4. related to / related with
    By salvia2 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-Oct-2009, 11:29
  5. differences between related to and related with
    By renton in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-Sep-2007, 14:00

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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