|
To firstly address your suspicion regarding my presence in this forum: I must say that your ability to google my username is impressive. Yes I am indeed a Dutch translator, that is no secret. It is also irrelevant, as is my reason for being here. However, what I also am is someone who is learning Russian and in searching for items of terminology that my humble dictionary could not provide, I happened upon your forum. I know enough of your language to understand what is going on here and thought, in my capacity as an English teacher, it would not be wrong to post a response to this thread. It was, after all, at the top of the list when I visited, naturally that is the first thread one opens. Nevertheless, my business here is a) irrelevant and b) none of your business. Now to address the more important matter of this sentence. I have spent some time thinking about this, in addition I have consulted the "Practical English Usage, Swann - OUP 2005" grammar book in order to be doubly sure. I grant you half a point. I will revise my INCORRECT to ROUGHLY CORRECT. Your quotes from various googled sources are not incorrect in the slightest, well done. However I still cannot accept your suggestion as being right, because it is not. Your problem is the article. You admit yourself to not having addressed this and having reviewed your posts this is a fundamental error on your part. While any sentence in which an article is missing remains understandable, it is not right. If it were, we would not use articles at all. The rules purtaining to articles are complicated, and I would refer you to a comprehensive grammar if you wish to check. So I can accept the sentence 'resulted in customer cancelling the order' because it is quite clear that an article is lacking. However the sentence 'resulted in customer's cancelling the order' I cannot accept due to its ambiguity. You see, this sentence introduces the possibility of 'customer' being plural, which it is not. Many people, native English speakers included, insert apostrophes incorrectly and your sentence could very easily be read as 'customers', merely with the apostrophe inserted incorrectly. This would therefore render the translation incorrect. Excluding the article makes your sentence, SirReal, incorrect, roughly correct - however you prefer, but I am sorry - it is NOT correct. That is the difference between your sentence and those that you have quoted. You cannot deny that your sentence lacked this vital article, whether that was intentional or not. Your initial post states: "грамматически некорректно" but your sentence, if we accept that the original is grammatically incorrect, is as "грамматически некорректно" as the original. However you look at it, and regardless of what I have said prior to this comment, any sentence lacking an important article is, in grammar terms, wrong. The extent to which it is wrong/accepted may vary, depending on the person who is reading it. But both the original and your sentence are incorrect/rougly correct for the same reason. From my position, the incorrect/roughly correct part is the missing article, there is nothing further, in particular reference to your "грамматически некорректно" relating to the original sentence, that is incorrect. I understand that the absence of articles in Russian makes it a somewhat tricky aspect of those languages that use them to Russian speakers. I must point out that this construction using a possessive is not common, and it is much better to use a sentence without it, i.e. 'Resulted in the customer cancelling the order'. Why complicate things? It just gives rise to mistakes. So I grant you half a point, but nothing more. The extent to which the initial sentence is "грамматически некорректно" is the same as that of your own. The only difference is the way in which you have formulated your sentence could lead to there being more ambiguity in its meaning. Either way, both are incorrect/roughly correct but absolutely NOT correct. ****** To all of those who have welcomed me here, many thanks. However given the attitude of others, I have no intention of hanging around. Life is too short for confrontation and I am not interested in participating any longer, it has become clear to me that this forum is more about abusing and mick taking of those who offer genuine advice. Your resident knight does not entertain the idea of allowing me into his realm, and the profound arrogance with which he conducts himself is a canny good reason to bolt. I question though, whether such an attitude would prevail were your knight not sat at a computer in the comfort and safety of his own home. I daresay not. It's very easy to be rude when you don't actually have to meet those to whom you are being rude. So adamrhaynes is signing off. Good night and good luck. Fight arrogance.
|
