I would appreciate it very much if you could provide me with information about whether there is any difference between the following or not. We decided to compile a glossary of The Holy Testament first, and then translate The Holy Testament. We decided to compile first a glossary of The Holy Testament , and then translate The Holy Testament. Thanks in advance
The difference is in emphasis. When you say, "We decided to compile first (something)..." you're putting the emphasis on the verb "compile." This gives the reader or listener a clue that the discussion is about your compilations. So we are expecting the sentence to continue this way:We decided to compile first a glossary of the Holy Testament, then to compile a glossary of the Koran, then of the Book of Mormon, then the Baha'i Writings, then the holy books of the Hindus, until eventually we will have complete glossaries of all the world's holy books. When you say, "We decided to compile a glossary of the Holy testament first," you're giving both yourself and the reader more leeway. You're telling us that the second thing you intend to do will surely have something to do with religions and their holy books, but we don't know what. So when you finally tell us that it will be a translation, this makes sense. The other way is confusing because it causes us to assume, reasonably, that the next thing you're going to do is also a compilation. When you say it's a translation, we feel like we've missed something important so we don't clearly understand what you're doing or why. It's like saying, "I'm going to take my wife shopping for a new dress first, then I'll go to the library." We're all sputtering, "What?? Wait!! What is your wife going to be doing? Why are you abandoning her in the shopping mall? How will she get home?" "First, I'm going to take my wife shopping. Then I'll go to the library." That makes more sense. We understand that the minute details of the activities between the shopping mall and the library are not important to the discussion. Perhaps you're going to take her home and then drive to the library. Perhaps the shopping mall is so close to home that she plans to walk home in order to get some exercise and fresh air. Perhaps she's going to meet some friends at the mall and spend the afternoon with them. None of this is important in this context. By the way: What, exactly, is the "Holy Testament?" I can find no definitions or references to this phrase. The word "testament" almost always occurs in: "Old Testament," the Christian name for the Torah "New Testament," the books added to the Bible by Christians telling the story of Jesus "Last will and testament," which is the formal legal version for the more common term will, the instructions you leave directing the disposition of your property after your death.
Thank you so much. I have very well learnt all that you have taught me. Nevertheless, not only I can understand what the following means well, also I ca not understand what you indicate by that. It's like saying, "I'm going to take my wife shopping for a new dress first, then I'll go to the library." We're all sputtering, "What?? Wait!! What is your wife going to be doing? Why are you abandoning her in the shopping mall? How will she get home?" "First, I'm going to take my wife shopping. Then I'll go to the library." That makes more sense. We understand that the minute details of the activities between the shopping mall and the library are not important to the discussion. Perhaps you're going to take her home and then drive to the library. Perhaps the shopping mall is so close to home that she plans to walk home in order to get some exercise and fresh air. Perhaps she's going to meet some friends at the mall and spend the afternoon with them. None of this is important in this context.
That instantly identifies you as a foreigner. We don't talk that way. "Learnt" has not been used in everyday American speech or writing for decades.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the trend in American business was toward increased privatization of government industries... In the 1980s and 1990s, the trend in American business was increased toward privatization of government industries... Would you tell me whether or not there is any difference semantically between the sentences? .......... In addition, would you tell me if we replace the word increased with increasing, then would the sentence have different meanings? Thanks in advance
This sentence is wrong. It says that the trend was increased. It was privatization that was increased. Yes. As I said, the second one is 100% wrong. The two sentences are not equivalent. It would not change the meaning. It could be written either way. By the way, the word "toward" can be completely eliminated: The trend . . . . was increased privatization . . . .
