@contrex,
Yes. Over-analysing.
There are two intended signatories to this document. So it's written in a way that both can sign.
This sort of snotty argument by a non-native, good-but-not-great speaker of English forwarded against native speakers, most if not all of whom have university educations, is exactly why i had stopped answering this member's posts in the past. I should have stuck with my resolution.
@oristarA,
Quote: Can we use another structure to express the meaning that the sentence "The surrender [to the Allies] of Japan" conveys, Contrex?
The surrender of Japan to the Allies.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
This sort of snotty argument by a non-native, good-but-not-great speaker of English forwarded against native speakers, most if not all of whom have university educations, is exactly why i had stopped answering this member's posts in the past. I should have stuck with my resolution.
Well, InfraBlue is from Texas and he argued a clearer way to put it.
Was I against native speakers? Isn't Contrex a decent native English speaker?
It's perfectly clear as it was written. The Allied Powers are SPECIFICALLY DEFINED as the USA, USSR, .... That term cannot refer to Japan or any of its allies. Japan and its allies surrender to the Allied Powers. It doesn't need to be rewritten to reduce ambiguity--there is no ambiguity. There certainly was no ambiguity in 1945 as to who was surrendering to whom, nor has there been any since.
The locution is not ambiguous. Several native speakers here, including Contrex, have said that it is not ambiguous. Some people will always come along who get some kind of pleasure out of restating things, so Oristar thinks he/she has demonstrated that it was ambiguous, and that he/she now has an unambiguous answer. Historical documents are not up for revisions, and, tediously, once again, the wording of this document was never ambiguous. This is an example of what Americans (and perhaps the English, too) refer to as being pig-headed.
Only comparison can distinguish.
Both 1) and 2) are unambiguous:
1)The surrender to the Allies of Japan.
2)The surrender of Japan to the Allies.
But which is clearer?
It is 2)!
Because without historical knowledge, one can understand 2) immediately, but one may hesitate to get the true meaning of 1).
@oristarA,
It is clearer to you.
It is the same to native speakers of English.
@ehBeth,
InfraBlue is from Texas and he appears to agree with me.
@oristarA,
From the text which you supplied yourself:
Quote:We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers. (emphasis added)
It was never ambiguous, it was never unclear. It never required a knowledge of history. That's why your silly attempt to insist that it was makes you look pig-headed. If you actually believe that your command of English is better than that of well-educated native speakers of English, why do you bother to come here to ask questions? Is it because you think we'll pat you on the back and say: "That Oristar is so clever!"?
I think Setanta overreacted. He's used to act like a warrior who wields his cherished sword to conquer the world.
@oristarA,
Sure, Bubba, whatever you say.
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
oristarA wrote:InfraBlue is from Texas and he appears to agree with me.
Yes, I do.
With your support I sleep easy.
@JTT,
My intuition tells me yours is better. But:
Used to
Used to do
We use 'used to' for something that happened regularly in the past but no longer happens.
•I used to smoke a packet a day but I stopped two years ago.
•Ben used to travel a lot in his job but now, since his promotion, he doesn't.
•I used to drive to work but now I take the bus.
The link:
http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/usedto/menu.php
"used to" also means "is accustomed to"
or "is comfortable with", as in "I don't like the high heels of cowboy boots, I'm used to comfortable shoes."
@oristarA,
Quote:He's used to acting
Quote:My intuition tells me yours is better. But:
Used to
Used to do
We use 'used to' for something that happened regularly in the past but no longer happens.
•I used to smoke a packet a day but I stopped two years ago.
•Ben used to travel a lot in his job but now, since his promotion, he doesn't.
•I used to drive to work but now I take the bus.
I see where you are coming from now, Ori. The problem lies not with your lack of
verb+ing. The problem is you used the 'be' verb in your original. I've put it in bold, made it big and struck thru it.
I used to do sth.
I
'm used to do
ing sth.
