|
Post by andydecker on Oct 12, 2021 15:49:01 GMT
As a foreigner I don't get it. What is the problem here? Are there no octagonal divans? To be sure, but they rarely seat thousands of people. And the one in front of the Mona Lisa, that he is talking about, definitely does not. Ah. So it should have been "had served as a divan for" in this case and context? I ask because I know similar descriptions where writers seem to be lax with the time and it is often difficult to put it in the right context.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Oct 12, 2021 16:31:01 GMT
To be sure, but they rarely seat thousands of people. And the one in front of the Mona Lisa, that he is talking about, definitely does not. Ah. So it should have been "had served as a divan for" in this case and context? I ask because I know similar descriptions where writers seem to be lax with the time and it is often difficult to put it in the right context. That would still have been wrong, as the place in question has certainly seen more than "thousands" of visitors. I suppose the "thousands" was meant to refer to the number of visitors per day, but who knows what, if anything, went on in his mind. In any case, the problem is that his sentence implies that those thousands of visitors are all resting on the divan simultaneously. Now on to the next quotation! Can you see what is wrong there?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 12, 2021 17:31:30 GMT
That would still have been wrong, as the place in question has certainly seen more than "thousands" of visitors. I suppose the "thousands" was meant to refer to the number of visitors per day, but who knows what, if anything, went on in his mind. In any case, the problem is that his sentence implies that those thousands of visitors are all resting on the divan simultaneously. Now on to the next quotation! Can you see what is wrong there? Ah. I see. Sloppy. And: yes.
|
|