What Do I Do If I Get This Job?
Jobs & Education1 min ago
how does it sound
12 Answers
Which sounds better:
"a journal which consider submissions in other languages"
or
"a journal which considers submissions in other languages"
?
My own first choice was "considers" but looking at it now it sounds to me as if the journal were a person. I want to change it to "consider" , to make it refer to the actual editors, but I'm not sure if that would sound correct...? (I'm a bleeding foreigner.)
"a journal which consider submissions in other languages"
or
"a journal which considers submissions in other languages"
?
My own first choice was "considers" but looking at it now it sounds to me as if the journal were a person. I want to change it to "consider" , to make it refer to the actual editors, but I'm not sure if that would sound correct...? (I'm a bleeding foreigner.)
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by swedeheart. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Strictly speaking, it should be 'that' rather than 'which'. 'Which' is usually separated by commas:
The house, which I saw, was white.
(I saw it; it was white)
The house that I saw was white (There may have been may houses - but the one I saw was white)
Anyway, your second example is better. The journal considers submissions. The most frequent exception to the singular/plural rule is football teams: Arsenal are a fine team; Arsenal is a fine club.
The house, which I saw, was white.
(I saw it; it was white)
The house that I saw was white (There may have been may houses - but the one I saw was white)
Anyway, your second example is better. The journal considers submissions. The most frequent exception to the singular/plural rule is football teams: Arsenal are a fine team; Arsenal is a fine club.
Oh god I'll never learn English... jno thanks very much for pointing that out, you know I appreciate it, I want this to be correct. Tell me, does that also mean that a sentence like say this one:
[...] is the name of a Swedish journal, which also considers submissions in other languages.
...would sound odd - cut off, sort of? That is to say, does it demand a second comma and a continuation? Or is it not only cut off but even incorrect? ...i.e. is it not possible to use "which" in that kind of sentence? (And when I say "possible" I do want the strict answer, that's what I'm here for, so bring it on!)
[...] is the name of a Swedish journal, which also considers submissions in other languages.
...would sound odd - cut off, sort of? That is to say, does it demand a second comma and a continuation? Or is it not only cut off but even incorrect? ...i.e. is it not possible to use "which" in that kind of sentence? (And when I say "possible" I do want the strict answer, that's what I'm here for, so bring it on!)
-- answer removed --
no, that's 100% correct - you don't need a second comma if the clause comes at the end.
Don't worry, the that/which rule isn't so very widely observed by English-speakers anyway. For one thing, it doesn't work with prepositions. 'The house in that I lived' doesn't exist in anyone's English so you have to say 'The house in which I lived' for both constructions or turn it around and say 'The house [that] I lived in' - I used the square brackets to indicate that very often you can drop 'that' altogether.
Fear not, your English is still about five million per cent better than my Swedish.
Don't worry, the that/which rule isn't so very widely observed by English-speakers anyway. For one thing, it doesn't work with prepositions. 'The house in that I lived' doesn't exist in anyone's English so you have to say 'The house in which I lived' for both constructions or turn it around and say 'The house [that] I lived in' - I used the square brackets to indicate that very often you can drop 'that' altogether.
Fear not, your English is still about five million per cent better than my Swedish.
Thanks very much jno. I suspect you'll see me make the same old mistake over and over again - I'm too old to learn - but I will remember to refer to this thread when I feel the need to be correct.
About your Swedish... yes but you haven't been brought up watching Swedish drama on television every night have you!
Tack s� mycket.
About your Swedish... yes but you haven't been brought up watching Swedish drama on television every night have you!
Tack s� mycket.
The plural/singular [Arsenal is / Arsenal are] is as easy as anything else in English (if you have English as your mother tongue, that is!).
Which we use depends on how we are thinking of the subject .We may use both in successive sentences or even in the same one: "The jury was discharged from giving a verdict.They had spent hours arguing but could not agree." Here the speaker is initially thinking of the jury as a jury, as one unit,one body ( 'the jury was'), then thinking of of them as twelve individuals arguing ( 'they had spent'.) 'The jury was discharged and so they all went home" has the same ideas in one sentence.It would not be wrong to use the plural throughout (the speaker could be thinking of twelve individuals being discharged, as individuals) but using the singular would sound odd: 'it had spent hours' is odd because 'it' would have been arguing with 'itself'
We don't readily think of a journal as being several people!
Which we use depends on how we are thinking of the subject .We may use both in successive sentences or even in the same one: "The jury was discharged from giving a verdict.They had spent hours arguing but could not agree." Here the speaker is initially thinking of the jury as a jury, as one unit,one body ( 'the jury was'), then thinking of of them as twelve individuals arguing ( 'they had spent'.) 'The jury was discharged and so they all went home" has the same ideas in one sentence.It would not be wrong to use the plural throughout (the speaker could be thinking of twelve individuals being discharged, as individuals) but using the singular would sound odd: 'it had spent hours' is odd because 'it' would have been arguing with 'itself'
We don't readily think of a journal as being several people!
Yes fredpuli47 it's in view of that kind of examples I asked my question in the first place. Everything you say makes perfect sense even to these foreign ears of mine, it's when we come to the journal example I suddenly go "deaf". It may be because personally I do tend to think of a journal as people and even more so in this case when I'm discussing submissions - that* are certainly going to be scrutinized by a "jury" before being published or rejected. I see them sitting there at the table, stern faces. Your examples were very good, I'll remember to have a look at them the next time I'm uncertain. Thanks!
*see, jno - I nailed it! (Or at least I think I did...)
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
As Americans Go To The Polls..,
Politics4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
News11 mins ago
News12 mins ago
