In the two articles is lots of information , but in ( all / vain / half / both ) , it is useless. 

Original Post

Hi, Islam,

islam mohamed posted:

In the two articles is lots of information , but in ( all / vain / half / both ) , it is useless. 

It happened that the author of this outside book was one of my dearest friends. Unfortunately, he passed away a few months ago. He was a great man and really conscientious. He was a successful teacher, a successful father and a successful author.

Now, let's get back to the sentence above. I completely agree with Gustavo's opinion. It is a typical sentence of a non-native English speaker. Although some people may consider it poor English, I'll try to reflect its writer's opinion. In the first part of the sentence, he applied what is called 'the omission of the existential there'. Using this kind of inversion, he means that the focus lies on 'lots of information'. That's why 'in both' doesn't work here. In the second part, he meant to say ''in all," this amount of information is useless. According to his thinking, 'in vain' doesn't work here. If you want it to work, you must omit the comma and insert either 'because' or 'a full-stop'. 

Last edited by ahmed_btm

Thank you Ahmed and Gustavo

As for your dead friend , May Allah bless and put him in paradise 

Can we consider this a run on sentence and thus we don’t need “ because” to use “ in vain “ as a possible correct answer “ 

Last edited by islam mohamed
islam mohamed posted:

Can we consider this a run on sentence and thus we don’t need “ because” to use “ in vain “ as a possible correct answer “ 

Run-on sentences can't be found in formal exams.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×