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.
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 00:20.
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.
Last edited by Taka; 10-Feb-2012 at 00:04.
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.
I would say not.
I have already said not.
So 'be related to' and 'be concerned with' are semantically a bit different.
What exactly is the difference between the two?
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.