Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. angliholic's Avatar
    Key Member
    Student or Learner
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Taiwan
      • Current Location:
      • Taiwan

    • Join Date: Feb 2007
    • Posts: 2,988

    Smile Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.

    Deforestation also threatens the pandas' food supply. Pandas feed mainly on bamboo, consuming up to 38 kilograms a day. Without enough forest area, the pandas will starve.

    Deforestation ... Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.

    Do both of the above two versions read well and convey the same senes? Thanks.

  2. Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Feb 2005
    • Posts: 2,585

    Re: Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.

    Hello Angli,

    I would choose the first version. In a serious context, "starve" in continuous forms can convey the meaning "starve to death", e.g.

    1. People in Africa are starving.

    But "starve" (again, in continuous forms) can also convey "be very hungry", in an exaggerated, non-serious way, e.g.

    2. I'm starving = I'm very hungry
    3. I was starving = I was very hungry

    This is less true of the continuous future; but the "very hungry" meaning does seem to interfere with your intended meaning, in your example #2.

    Best wishes,


    Not a professional ESL teacher.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Sep-2007, 16:38


Posting Permissions

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