Language desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 5

A question about readability

I am not a native english speaker and neither are my colleagues. I have read that automated grammar checker causes 'more harm than good'. I still tried it though, but I do not know if the automated checker would give the same remarks as human readers would. I just want to hear from you. This is a sample of the essay-

.....Most of us believes that an action is moral if a personal God have approved it so. But the second one disagrees with this, because he or she is a deist, who does not believe that there is single correct religion. Of the two, the first one is the most dangerous because we need to base our moral convictions to a certain religious view. More so, if we believe that something is moral if a God approved it, then we can do something if we think that it is really prescribed by a personal God. This is exactly what happened in the history of religions, and this continuously occurs up to this day and in the days to come. This is where the term good would be tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.249 (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take out "the second one disagrees" and replace with "some disagree". Take out "because he or she" and replace with "because they" (they goes with some). Replace "who does" with "who do" (again, to match the plural "some"). Replace "Of the two" with "Of these two beliefs" to make it clear what you're describing. In the next sentence, replace replace the second "if" with "because" to read "because a God approved it". Otherwise, it seems OK. --Jayron32 13:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other grammatical errors ... "Most of us believes" should be "Most of us believe"; "God have" should be "God has"; "base ... to" should be "base ... on". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous answers, that's poorly written. My version:

Most of us believe that an action is moral if our personal God approves. But, a second group, deists, disagrees with this, and does not believe there's a single correct religion. Of the two, the first is the most dangerous, because it bases our moral convictions on a certain religious view. Therefore, if we believe that something is moral when whichever God we choose approves, according to our chosen interpretation, we can justify anything. This is exactly what happened in the history of religions, and continues to occur today and in the days to come. This is where the term "good" is truly put to the test.

StuRat (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since "automated grammar checker" was mentioned, I thought I try out my Ginger grammar app. It found most but not all errors (including those in comments). It still needs to "learn" about ignoring HTML, though. There are still some problems which relate to logic parsing, and not grammar. Essentially, there are too many sentence fragments poorly assembled. (There are some interesting developments in natural language processing in this regard). 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go:

Most people believe that an action is moral if their personal God approves. However, deists and others disagree and do not believe that there is a single correct religion. Of the two groups, the first one is the most dangerous because it bases moral convictions on a certain religious view. Therefore, if ~~believing~~ [the belief] that something is moral whenever the chosen interpretation of God approves, then anything can be justified. This is exactly what happened in the history of religions, occurs today, and will continue in the days to come. This is where the term "good" is truly put to the test.

74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC) : [modified: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Your sentence "Therefore, if believing that something ..." is not grammatical. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" ... the more dangerous ... " -- Elphion (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think either "more" or "most" works, since "more" is for a comparison of two items, and "most" is for a comparison of any number of items, including two. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ;) — Preceding repentant comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself; but "most" for one of two grates on my ears. -- Elphion (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Stu is the most not-bestest grammar guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu's mathematical approach to language is world-renowned. But what he said above is utter rubbish, even by his own standards. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, is wrong with it ? (My fave mathematical grammar rule: "Fewer" applies to integer values, while "less" applies to non-integers. Thus: "Fewer coffee beans make less coffee, at a given concentration".) StuRat (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence didn't make any logical sense, which was my main issue. The second half of the sentence renders the first half irrelevant. If "more" is for a comparison of two items, and "most" is for a comparison of any number of items, including two, then we could simply dispense with the word "more", and with the entire comparative degree. I don't think that's going to be happening any time soon. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but English is full of words with overlapping meanings, and we don't dispense with those, so why would we here ? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the rules. I might say "Mary is the most amazing person in this office". If the number of amazing persons is not specified, then that would be correct expression. But if we mention the number, the ball game can change. If it's 3 or more, "most" is still ok. But 2 requires "more": "Of the 2 amazing people in this office, Mary is the more amazing". "Most" would be quite, quite wrong there. But a reading of your post above would suggest that "most" is acceptable there. I dispute that, and I dispute the general rule you seem to have made up out of thin air to cover such cases. Show me a ref that supports your theory and we can talk some more. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown me a ref. And note that you had to rewrite it, as since "Mary is the more amazing person in this office" sounds very wrong. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you could call a reliable source, but Comparison (grammar) states "In many languages, including English, traditional grammar requires the comparative form to be used when exactly two things are being considered ..." Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing also goes into when to use the comparative and when the superlative.[1] Face it, Stu, the grammar police have a perpetual APB out on you. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're using outdated rules. I find 6,160,000,000 ghits for "the most of the two" [2], and only 2,300,000,000 ghits for "the more of the two" [3]. So, not only is "most" used in the comparison of two items, it's the preferred choice by most. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've misquoted me, Stu. Your abomination "Mary is the more amazing person in this office" is something I never wrote, and would never write. I specifically said that "most" is the correct word in that formulation, which does not reveal how many people are in the office (even if the speaker happens to know how many). You are the Ronald Reagan of the Reference Desk, and I don't mean that in a good way. You dredge up ghits to support your weird theories, then completely make up supposed quotes in order to demolish them, as if that has anything to do with the actual matter at hand. Straw Man Stu, I'll call you from now on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are having problems with reading comprehension, Jack (perhaps changing my word "as" to "since" might enable you to understand that sentence correctly). I never claimed you said "Mary is the more amazing person in this office", I just pointed out that this sounds wrong, while "most" sounds quite natural there, so should be used, even if there are only two people in the office. And how do you figure that ghits (showing most people use "most" when comparing two item) are irrelevant to a discussion of exactly that topic ? This would only be irrelevant to you, if you were one to stick with outdated grammar rules long after the rest of the world had moved on. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can you please check your figures? When I look at your two links, I get 2.09 billion and 2.7 billion respectively. Where do your 6.16 and 2.3 billion figures come from? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No response after 2 days: I take that to be an implicit acknowledgement that your numbers were bogus and that your argument is of no merit. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the bumbling masses choose to do no longer surprises me (appalls yes). 48% of Americans believe in ghosts.[4] That doesn't make me want to join the Church of St. Casper. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]