ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:53:42 GMT

Thanks, Yoong. Every time I get nailed really good, I start doing that for a while, and then I get lazy and take chances.

I always think it will only be a couple of words, but you know how one thing leads to another. This last time, it was way too big. I probably deserved it.

- A.

Re: the weapon[s]

Yoong Liat — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:44:31 GMT

New2grammar

Avangi, I feel your pain. After experiencing that several times, I keep my edit short or just create a new post to avoid the problem though it may not be elegant. But it saves a lot of time :)

Iin the past, (it happened several times) after I clicked the 'post' button, my detailed reply disappeared. Nowadays, before I post the reply, I copy it so that I can paste it and post again if my reply is gone.

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:39:16 GMT

I'm not saying it's true, but it leaves open the possibility that some of the bomblets are designed to function as anti-personnel weapons - like land mines.

I couldn't have sensed it without your explanation. Now, I totally agree with you. If it is really true, the weapons designers are really evil, considering the number of innocent civilians who have lost their lives or limbs to the intended unexploded bomblets. Unbelievable!

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:26:08 GMT

In the interest of leaving no stone unturned, I must broach this one more time.

I'll accept "It is expected/believed/hoped/assumed/trusted/thought/presumed/etc. that most of the bomblets will detonate on impact." That could lead, in the opinion of many, to a morally tenable position. They've done the best they can to assure that as many as possible will explode. We may assume they wish all the bomblets would explode.

But to say "It is intended that most of the bomblets will detonate on impact" is something different, in my opinion. The corollary to/of that statement (or whatever it is) is "It is intended that some of the bomblets will not detonate on impact." I'm not saying it's true, but it leaves open the possibility that some of the bomblets are designed to function as anti-personnel weapons - like land mines. (I should probably see if there's any verification on the net before saying such a thing.)

I appreciate your example of the varying ranges of supposedly identical cartridges. It applies, but not perfectly, since detonation is a yes-or-no deal rather than a quantitative deal.

- A.

Edit. The real quote is, "Most of a cluster bomb's bomblets are meant to explode on impact." "meant" = "intended"

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:15:12 GMT

Would we assume it referred back to "cluster munitions," (as you originally thought) or would we have to add something more specific?

I think you've just answered my question! I think we need an adjective or descriptor. THANK YOU, Avangi!

As for 'most' question, parachutes would not be a good comparison, I think, because the original refers to the bomblets contained in a single cluster bomb. You need a similar example, maybe a the pistons of an engine, or a magazine of bullets.

Most bullets of a magazine can fire 3000 yards but some can only manage to reach 2500 yards.

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:09:35 GMT

Parachutes are not perfect either, but if I read an ad saying "Most of our parachutes are intended to open when you pull the rip cord," I'd be very suspicious. I think they should all be intended to open.

One more question on class, if I may. Shouldn't there be something to distinguish it from all other classes? For instance, the strawberry, the black widow spider? Would changing "the weapons" to "the weapon" be enough? Would we assume it referred back to "cluster munitions," (as you originally thought) or would we have to add something more specific?

- A.

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:43:56 GMT

I'm really glad you feel most is a bit ackward in this context. I had the same feeling and wanted to post a question about it but after debating for a while, I decided the reporter acknowledged nothing is perfect. Maybe when the weapons designers designed it, they knew the weapon[s?] wouldn't be 100% effective but still went ahead knowing it would still be better than most weapons in the same class.

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:35:33 GMT

Thanks, N2g. I was starting to get confused. Now it's clear why you wanted to switch to singular. Surely this would be acceptable, bearing MrM's caveat in mind.

So I would probably need to say, "The wild berry is usually not poisonous."

Also, I was just noticing a word in your excerpt: Most of the bomblets are meant to explode on contact. I wonder if that means some are intended not to explode.

- A.

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:19:24 GMT

Thanks Avangi. So, either is fine though the plural is preferred because the previous sentence is in plural.

Wild berries are usually not poisonous. (I don't know -If you asked 'Strawberries' or some other type of berries, I would say it's not a class. For it to be a class, 'the +singular form' is required, the strawberry, etc)

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:56:13 GMT

"Cluster munitions, which break apart in flight to scatter hundreds of smaller bomblets" - You might say it "deploys." No doubt explosives are involved in scattering the bomblets.

The cluster bomb ceases to exist as a unit, long before any bomblets hit the ground. How many bomblets would have to explode to enable us to say "the cluster bomb exploded"? One? All 300? What would it mean to say the cluster bomb fails to explode 20% of the time?

When I read MrM's post, I wasn't sure if he was referring to "cluster munitions" or "bomblets" or both, when he spoke of the plural being used in the first sentence. I usually hear "cluster munitions" in the plural used to describe the class of weapons. Why plural, is debatable. In the second sentence we have "a cluster bomb . . "

If "cluster munitions" in plural can describe a class, then so can "weapons" in plural. I'm inclined to yield to MrM's point that to switch to singular would sound a little strange.

In my opinion there's no way to tell whether "weapons" in the last sentence refers to the class or the collection of bomblets - or if there's even a difference. I guess if you switch to singular, it would have to be the class. If I say, "Wild berries are usually not poisonous," is that a class??

- A.

Edit. Ah yes, Yoong, I believe you're right. Thanks. I must be more wary. (funny thing, I always say "accidently.")

Re: the weapon[s]

Yoong Liat — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:39:39 GMT

Avangi
That means there are 75 bomblets lying around on the ground waiting for kids to accidently detonate them.

I believe the word in bold is a typo. It should be 'accidentally'.

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:33:39 GMT

Avangi, I feel your pain. After experiencing that several times, I keep my edit short or just create a new post to avoid the problem though it may not be elegant. But it saves a lot of time :)

Re: the weapon[s]

Avangi — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:25:49 GMT

I wrote a whole bloody edit on that subject but they zapped it. Dang! CSO = cheerfully start over.

Re: the weapon[s]

english maven — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:25:15 GMT

"Most of a cluster bomb's bomblets are meant to explode on impact, but many do not." This sentence indicates that the author is talking about the bomb's bomblets, if I'm not mistaken.

Re: the weapon[s]

New2grammar — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:13:14 GMT

Before your reply, I was quite certain the weapons referred to cluster bombs, not their bomblets. Could you help me understand why the weapons refer to the bomblets instead of the bombs themselves in this context?