Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Hi everyone –
I am now learning English as a second language. I have some questions, and I hope someone could answer them for me.
1.
"Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, a powerful beam of light."
Is this sentence correct? Well, I just thought this sentence is a little odd. Is my instinct true?
2.
"On Friday, British police released two men after tests cleared them of possessing containers of hydrogen peroxide, the chemical used in 2005 suicide bombings in London."
Is this sentence correct? Should I add the before “2005”?
3.
"Mercury, the innermost and smallest of the nine planets that orbit the sun, is the nearest planet to the sun and is similar in appearance to the Moon."
Is this sentence correct? Why not all the sun and moon toghter capitalized? Is it OK to capitalize moon but not to capitalize sun in one sentence? Also, I think "the innermost" and "the nearest planet to the sune" are redundant. Am I right? How should I revise it?
Thanks!
Good luck with learning English. It's my first language and I'm still learning the subtleties. 🙂 To answer your questions ...
1. Since a laser is not "a powerful beam of light" but instead emits a powerful beam of light, I would revise this sentence as: “Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, which emit powerful beams of light.”
2. Definitely add the definite article "the" before the year number. Otherwise the sentence implies there were 2005 individual bombings.
3. This has been discussed in another thread. As I explained, I always capitalize "Sun" and "Moon" when they refer to specific suns or moons. You are correct that there's a redundancy in that sentence, since "innermost" and "closest" convey the same info. I would rewrite that sentence as: “Mercury, the innermost and smallest of the nine planets that orbit the Sun, is similar in appearance to the Moon.”
Thanks, Heimhenge!
As for question 1,
"Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, which emit powerful beams of light."
I think your revised version is quite good. And yes, according to the Oxford Dictionary and Wiki, a laser is a device that emits light through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation.
However, here is the definition of "laser" in the Cambridge Dictionary:
"(a device that produces) a powerful, narrow beam of light that can be used as a tool to cut metal, to performmedical operations, or to create patterns of light forentertainment"
It seems that "laser" is not necessarily or always a device that emits power beams of light; it could sometimes be just powerful beams of light.
Anyway, what I want to ask is:
Let's suppose that a laser could be a powerful beam of light, and then:
a. Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, a powerful beam of light.
b. Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, powerful beams of light.
Which is correct? Are they both correct? Because "lasers" takes a plural form, I am not sure whether its apposition should be consistent with "lasers" to take a plural form as well.
You are welcome. Glad to be of assistance.
The problem is that a laser can't BE "a powerful beam of light" but it can EMIT or MAKE a powerful beam of light. That's what I was trying to correct with your original question. The word "be" means "is" or "is the same as" so it's just not correct to say: A laser IS a powerful beam of light. That's like saying a loudspeaker IS loud sound, or a headlamp IS bright light.
You are correct that not all lasers emit "powerful" beams of light ... a standard laser pointer, or a supermarket scanning laser, emit relatively weak beams of light (but can still damage your vision).
Your sentence b is more correct, but I'd still write: Industry and medicine are continually finding new uses for lasers, which emit powerful beams of light.
Ron Draney said
Not that it has any bearing on the grammar points being asked about, but you may want to update that business about "the nine planets that orbit the sun". There are only eight now.
Yeah, I thought about changing that, but it wasn't really relevant to the question. And though I supported the "demotion" of Pluto to a "minor planet" it seems the jury is still out on that question. At least that's what I read online.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)