three questions inside to be answered n thanks everyone

I'll give numbers 2 and 3 a try.

Living "in the midst of" means "among". It means there are scenic wonders everywhere around. To me, saying "in the middle" is more geographic, and literally means you are 50% of the way from the political boarder drawn on a map. You can live among scenic wonders in San Diego (at the far southern end of the state) while being far from the geographic middle of the state.

"Scorched" is a word usually associated with damage from fire. "Scalded" is usually associated with damage from hot water (if a pot of boilng water was tipped over on you, your skin would be scalded). I usually think of "seared" as damage from fire or extream heat, and the word can be used regarding the cooking of meat. I associate the damage from "searing" as being worse than from "scorching".

You may want to look these words up in a good dictionary. This was just off the top of my head.

Number one is hard to answer without knowing the context of the statement. Unless we know what this artificial thing is, it is hard to say which option would be more appropriate.

For number two I agree with Jim. "Middle" is too specific for the case you have presented.

For number three I would agree with Jim about the word scalded, it does imply burning by water. Seared, however, is a perfectly acceptable synonym of scorched in most situations (unless you are speaking of something like cooking where "scorched" would imply over-cooking or burning of food), it is really up to the author to chose which word they like more. Also, I am unsure what word you intend when you say that the fire is verocious. Voracious perhaps? Or ferocious? Just thought I'd mention it as the two words do sound similar.

I'm unsure what your question is in regard to number four. The meaning of the sentence is slightly unclear to me, but I will suggest that you change " the matter of fact" to "the fact is".

This is the artificial imposition of human will on the land . ( why we don't say the artificial tax instead ?)

----------

navigator, imposition and tax will both work fine here

the sentence is only confusing because it is taken out of context, and this refers to something in the previous statement

pronouns such as this, he, her etc always refer back to the last valid instance

I would interpret the imposition of human will on the land as imposing the will as in intention, changing the landscape to suit people, chopping down forests etc

Therefore tax would not fit at all.

All true. However, without knowing the subject of the previous sentence, one cannot say whether "tax" would be appropriate.

Vivien,

that is how I interpreted it as well.

tax DOES work fine under that interpretation...perhaps you are not aware of all the meanings of the word tax.

"The artificial TAX of human will upon the land" would indeed be most inappropriate if one were speaking of human will in a positive sense. Thus we must first be apprised of the intent of the preceding sentence.

fortune,

if he said tax, he meant negative.

do you usually assume that someone meant to write the opposite of what they said?

I could use the same argument on your sentence:



If, by artificial, you mean created naturally, then your statement is wrong also. But do you see how pointless it is to assume they meant the opposite of what they said?

stuh, English is a second language to navigator, so indeed tax may be inappropriate or even incorrect. I was merely trying to get a hold of the exact meaning of the sentence so that we might be able to provide the most accurate phrasing.

If one were to use 'tax' in the same context as 'imposition', the sentence would have to be rewritten, something like this: "This is the artificial taxing of the land by human influence/encroachment" which is a bit awkward. "This is the artificial imposition of human will on (or upon) the land" works just fine the way it is written.

As for number 2, the first thing is that it should be "Californians", plural. This is a case where "in the midst of" or "in the middle of" would be interchangable. "In the middle of" is more colloquial, but more often found in common speech, especially in North America. "In the midst of" is more 'correct', but considered by some to be a little outdated and stodgy.

Number 3: Well, that's already been answered. Scalded would refer to water burns. Now, here is a new word that works in the same context as scorched: "razed", implying mass destruction, the fire literally destroying eveything in it's path. Context: "The army completely razed the village with napalm." This would imply that nothing of the village existed after the attack.

Number 4 is a bit difficult to give advice on without the context. On it's own, the sentence doesn't really seem to mean anything.

Cav,

you're right. I didn't notice. this is turning into a much more difficult to answer question!

I have devised a context for the sentence:

The Honduras rainforest has long been a haven to many diverse classes of organisms, but recently a factor has grown which threatens its very existence: <statement>.

the following 4 alternatives work then in this context:

1 - "this is the artificial taxing of the land by human influence."

2 - "this is the artificial imposition of human will on the land."

3 - "this is the artificial human tax on the land"

4 - "this is the artificial tax which humans have imposed on the land"

in all of them, i would recommend artificial be removed for it's redundancy, except for in case 4.

are you following, navigator?

well ..you guys r really veteran . I hope I won't get an aneurism !!. . .