Language desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 15

"The only type of person I hold no remorse for is one given a miracle but who refuses to take advantage of it."

Can you help me make this sound like a decent sentence? I can't figure out what's wrong with it, but I don't think it sounds very good right now.

Maybe: "The only type of person I hold no remorse for is those who are given a miracle but refuse to take advantage of it." ??? 98.27.241.101 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is more with the words themselves rather than the grammar. "Hold remorse for" and "given a miracle", although comprehensible, aren't really idiomatic, and "take advantage of" implies some level of exploitation or abuse, which isn't really appropriate for miracles. Is "remorse" the right word? It implies that the speaker is only considering people he's harmed in some way. "Sympathy", perhaps? "Benefit from", "avail themselves of", or just "use", might be better than "take advantage of". Tevildo (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The only type of person I have no sympathy for is one who is given a miracle but refuses to take advantage of it." That's not wrong, but if you are concerned about people who don't like dangling prepositions, "The only type of person for whom I have no sympathy is one who is given a miracle but refuses to take advantage of it." I don't claim that either of these sentences is a stylistic gem, but they correct the misuse of remorse and the awkward structure of the original. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason it's awkward, in addition to the word choices mentioned by Tevildo (except 'take advantage' which fits with miracle as opportunity, and complements the 'give'), is that there are nested clauses and ambiguous subject-object relationships. You can simplify it and add a little punctuation, though perhaps lose the 'quotable' quality you might be after: "I have no sympathy for a person who, given a miracle, does not take advantage of it." Or if you're not a fan of commas like that: "I have no sympathy for a person who does not take advantage of a miracle." (The latter implies they were somehow presented with a miracle, but is also lacking in that implication..) El duderino ^(abides) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "is given a miracle" is awkward. How about "experiences a miracle"?

And "take advantage of a miracle" does not seem right. Miracles warrant more respect than is suggested by "take advantage of". Is "take advantage of a miracle" meant to convey "turn the results of a miracle to one's personal benefit"? Or "appreciate (or admire or respect) the extraordinary quality of the miraculous event"?

Singling a person who does not seek to benefit (in one way or another) from a miracle as "the ONLY type of person I have no remorse for" (or "the only type of person I have no sympathy for") puts a strain on the credulity of the reader of the sentence. There are such a wide range of people toward whom one might not be sympathetic. CBHA (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The oddest thing about this sentence is remorse, suggesting (as that word is most commonly used) that the speaker could harm such a person without regret; was its meaning formerly closer to ‘sympathy’? Less odd: one given, rather than one who is given, is rare enough to make some readers stumble.

I see nothing wrong with take advantage of, which literally means only ‘(lift a finger to) benefit from’ (though zero-sum thinking leads to the secondary meaning ‘cheat’). —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"have been" vs. "have"

Is it correct to use just "has" instead of "has been" in the same context? For example is it correct to say:
Queen Elizabeth II has reigned since 1952.
instead of saying:
Queen Elizabeth II has been reigning since 1952.
If yes, is there any difference in meanings of the two statements? Thanks. 14.139.82.7 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

Both are correct, but the latter highlights either the length or the temporary nature of the reign, depending on context -- see Continuous_and_progressive_aspects#English. The former is more likely, unless you have a particular reason for highlighting either of these. As an aside based on possibly unwarranted assumptions about your name, Indian English makes much greater use of the progressive than British English, so the latter may be more likely there. Unfortunately our article appears to ignore Indian English grammar entirely. Henry ^Flower 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of India, the correct sentence, if you want to state a fact and don't want to emphasize duration, is the first one. Even if I did want to emphasize duration, I think I would choose something like "QEII has reigned since 1952 — a total of 62 years." To my American ears, the second sentence sounds odd, though it is not incorrect. In spoken English, I think, the "has been reigning since" form sounds odd, because it is much more common to hear the homophonous "has been raining since". People are more likely to emphasize duration or progressivity when it comes to rain than to a reign. When a listener first hears "has been reigning" he or she may wonder for a second how a queen can shed rain. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's been reigning on Charlie's parade for years and years now. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not like it's an "OK, Mummy, you've had a pretty good run, how about moving into that nice retirement unit at Windsor Shady Pines and letting a real man have a go" system. You get born, you become the heir apparent, and you wait. For most of your life, if necessary. It's still Elizabeth's parade, and if anyone down the line is champing at the bit, then it is they who are raining on her parade. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I also really doubt that Charles just can't wait to be king. It must be a very stressful, thankless job. If I were Prince Charles I'd want her to stay alive as long as possible so I could avoid it. (And now that he has two sons and a grandson, if I were him I'd quickly convert to RC to make sure it passed me by altogether.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second one turns it into more of an adjective, and then the "be" part is redundant to the "has" (which is just a form of "is"). You could also either say the Queen is happy/sad/on fire or being happy/sad/on fire (or it is being rainy outside). One has an extra word, so isn't great for Wikipedia, but the meaning is essentially the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is being rainy outside? Really? Sure, it's formally grammatical, but not idiomatic in any ordinary context.

If I heard someone say "it is being rainy outside", I would look for some unusual interpretation to justify the unusual wording. For example, a speaker might be personifying the "it" that is (formally) the subject of the sentence, and ascribing to "it" some sort of willful peskiness. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd suspect, too. It's a sketchy phrase. I am feeling the same way about almost any which has been written like that is being. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't has vs has been. Instead, it's progressive aspect or not. For example, does he live there vs is he living there. The answer is that it's generally the choice of the speaker to decide whether to explicitly present the situation as one that started in the past and is expected to end (progressive) or simply one that holds at the moment. In your question, has reigned is present perfect and has been reigning is present perfect progressive.--Brett (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]