Which one?
1. A Machiavellian ruler will be remembered as the most popular politician of his time.
2. Bourgeois manners tend to be different from the manners of those in the middle class.
Printable View
Which one?
1. A Machiavellian ruler will be remembered as the most popular politician of his time.
2. Bourgeois manners tend to be different from the manners of those in the middle class.
Оба предложения грамматинчо правильны.
Но во втором есть неправильный выбор слов. Это потому что, Bourgeois = middle class, поэтому предложение не имеет смысла.
Well Machiavellian is defined as:
suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
Doesn't seem like a very popular figure... :dunno: Both wrong?
This is how I see it:Quote:
1. A Machiavellian ruler will be remembered as the most popular politician of his time.
"... the most popular politician of his time" can only refer to a definite person.
"A Machiavellian ruler" is not a definite person.
Am I wrong?
Одно другому не мешает. :wink:Quote:
Well Machiavellian is defined as:
suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
Doesn't seem like a very popular figure...
Yes, you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-learner
"... the most popular politician" refers back to the ruler mentioned earlier in the sentence. Grammatically, that is a definite person.
My objection to sentence 1 is that it contains a logical fallacy. The use of "will" is too determinate in a sentence that implies causality between a very general cause and a very specific effect. It implies that, simply by acting in a Machiavellian manner, any ruler can guarantee becoming the "most popular politician", which is provably false with even the most basic logic.
"A Machiavellian ruler could/ may/ might be remembered as the most popular politician of his time. "
"This Specific Machiavellian ruler will be remembered as the most popular politician of his time"
Sentence 1 is stupid, but technically, it is logically consistent. Sentence 2 is not logically consistent, as chaika pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher