have happened.

[hhtt21]

I try to form a sentence. Would you help me?

"By voting, astronomers have strip Pluto of its status as a planet. Thus one of the most important events of the history of astronomy has happened."

Is this sentence correct or make sense? If so, is it natural?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

I [STRIKE]try[/STRIKE] have tried to form a sentence. Would you help me?

"By [STRIKE]voting[/STRIKE] means of a vote, astronomers have stripped Pluto of its status as a planet [STRIKE]Thus[/STRIKE] causing one of the most important events [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] in the history of astronomy." [STRIKE]has happened."[/STRIKE]

Is this sentence correct [STRIKE]or[/STRIKE] and does it make sense? If so, is it natural?

Thank you.

See my suggested changes above. In reality, I would start with "Astronomers have voted to strip Pluto of its status ..."

 

[hhtt21]

Is a "comma" required between "planet" and "causing" ?

Thank you.

 

[hhtt21]

See my suggested changes above. In reality, I would start with "Astronomers have voted to strip Pluto of its status ..."

Does this not have confussion? The result, whether it is still a planet or not, is not clear from the sentence, isn't it?

Thank you.

 

[Raymott]

No, but the full sentence is ellipsed. ems said she would start the sentence that way. You have to add the rest.
Yes, it requires a comma before 'causing'.

 

[hhtt21]

No, but the full sentence is ellipsed. ems said she would start the sentence that way. You have to add the rest.

But this one have a confussion,"Astronomers have voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.", isn't it?

Thank you.

 

[hhtt21]

The natural inference is that the vote was in favour of stripping Pluto of its status.

But the result is not known only with above knowledge, isn't it?

Thank you.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I would write 'is it?' instead of 'isn't it?'.

When I see 'People voted to do something', I would think 'to do something' is the result.

 

[Raymott]

But the result is not known only with above knowledge, isn't it?

Thank you.

Yes it is, if you finish the sentence as I suggested was necessary and expected because of the ellipsis. The sentence goes on: ", causing one of the most important events ofin the history of astronomy."
Firstly, "they voted to do something" doesn't just mean that they had a vote. It means that the motion was carried. They voted yes.
Secondly, if they had voted no, then that would not have caused "one of the most important events in the history of astronomy."

 

[GoesStation]

Getting back to the original question, the sentence is not factually correct. Astronomers would tell you that whether Pluto is a planet, a minor planet, or a large asteroid is a minor matter of terminology.

 

[emsr2d2]

To refer to the vote itself, we would use "The astronomers voted on stripping Pluto of its status ...". In that case, we wouldn't know the result.
Using "The astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status ..." means we know the result of the vote was to strip it of its status.
If they had voted the other way, it would be "Astronomers voted not to strip Pluto of its status ..." or "Astronomers voted against stripping Pluto of its status ...".

 

[emsr2d2]

No. I simply meant that if we were just saying there was a vote, we would say that they voted on​ the subject.

Why do you think that "refer to" means "emphasise".

 

[hhtt21]

1. Astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, causing to one of the most important events in the history of astronomy.
2. Astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, causing to happen one of the most important events in the history of astronomy.
3.Astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, causing to take place one of the most important events in the history of astronomy.
4.Astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, thus causing to one of the most important events in the history of astronomy.

1 is the correct one but others?

Thank you.

 

[hhtt21]

#1 and #4 are wrong.#2 and #3 are very unnatural.

But 1st should be correct because

Using "The astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its status ..." means we know the result of the vote was to strip it of its status.
If they had voted the other way, it would be "Astronomers voted not to strip Pluto of its status ..." or "Astronomers voted against stripping Pluto of its status ...".

And from #2 post of this thread at page 1 of the thread.

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

In post #2, I most certainly did not write "causing to". That's what's wrong with sentence 1.

 

[hhtt21]

In post #2, I most certainly did not write "causing to". That's what's wrong with sentence 1.

Do not verbs always require prepositions and isn't it "to" in the case of "cause" ?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

Why do you think that? Sometimes a preposition comes close in the sentence to "cause/causing" but not directly after.

This vote caused me to lose my job.
This vote caused the loss of my job.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Do not verbs always require prepositions and isn't it "to" in the case of "cause" ?

I think a preposition is needed between an intransitive verb and a (pro)noun, as in 'come with me'. 'Cause' is transitive, so a preposition is not needed.

 

[Barb_D]

Getting back to the original question, the sentence is not factually correct. Astronomers would tell you that whether Pluto is a planet, a minor planet, or a large asteroid is a minor matter of terminology.

I can't agree - we all grew up learning the nine planets of our solar system. Suddenly there were only eight. It seemed very major to me, not simply a minor matter of terminology.

 

[GoesStation]

I can't agree - we all grew up learning the nine planets of our solar system. Suddenly there were only eight. It seemed very major to me, not simply a minor matter of terminology.

It could be literally world-changing (if "world" means "that icy rock out on the edge of the solar system" ) to laypeople, but hardly qualifies as an important event in the world of astronomy. The minor planet Pluto is the same as it was when it was a full-fledged planet; it's just described differently to match it better with the accepted structure of the solar system.