Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:13 pm
1) It is natural for him to be annoyed.
2) To be annoyed is natural for him.
3) Being annoyed is natural for him.

Do these three sentences make any sense? Personally, I think that their meaning is same. Please, say you opinion.

Are there alternative ways to express the meaning of sentences stated above?

Thanks to everybody.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 554 • Replies: 2
No top replies

Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2015 01:44 pm
@Nousher Ahmed,
They all make sense, and they all convey the same meaning.

I'm sure there are other ways to express it but none come to mind right now.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2015 01:54 pm
@Nousher Ahmed,
Do these three sentences make any sense?
Yes; although (2) and (3) are more open to interpretation, possibly make reference other folks' annoyance

Are there alternative ways
Doubtless dozens or scores

I thought, "Annoyance is his natural condition," but then backed off owing to equivocation/ambiguity. Tho "...natural state" better but not by much

"For him, it's natural to be annoyed," "For him, being annoyed is natural," "Being annoyed for him is natural," all equivocal.

"Natural it is, for him to be annoyed" Sort of kidding. But maybe you'll find something here:*&loc=revfp2&clue=state+of+annoyance
0 Replies

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
  1. Forums
  2. » it is
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2024 at 11:04:36