Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: E' corretto questo testo?

Salve ragazzi.
Vi chiedo se per favore potete evidenziarmi gli errori (a parte criteria 
per criterion nell'ultima occorrenza) in questa piccola submission 
(mezza pagina) che ho fatto recentemente in relazione ad una 
consultazione pubblica della Commissione europea:
http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/kjewA1JSmhGUdfOOUU--NbAdOek2g-c0wy9LcRuqN2GrGuypb4pq1Cq6ztrqQK_RslTH-5CIUyGqBINUo8lMdxK-jIyd-CDC/2QKw_o/christiano%20_s_en.pdf
Inoltre vi chiedo come avrei dovuto iniziare e come avrei dovuto finire?
E poi un'ultima domanda: io avrei scritto "if harmonisation be required" 
invece che "is required". Sarebbe stato corretto?
Grazie ancora
Ben

 invece che "is required". Sarebbe stato corretto?
I think so. I don't know whether it is just formal or it differs from the
version with the present simple in that it is interpreted as "if
harmonisation is to be required".
Ciao, FB
-- 
Domanda: "Era il figlio di Iside e Osiride".
Risposta: "Thor".
(quiz televisivo)

 I think so.
Thank you, FB. Did I make any mistake in my submission?



It takes me quite a while to open pdf files with this computer. I'll try
later with my macintosh, unless someone has already helped you.
Bye, FB
-- 
"Something to take to the country." (holding out a bunch of flowers)
"Flowers come _from_ the country, Charles."
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film)

I got  "The page cannot be found." 
ari

 I got  "The page cannot be found."
It's strange... I got it too, but now it seems to work...
I will transcribe it here:
---cut---
I am sending my comments on some issues on the Workin Paper on the 
review of the EC legal framework in the field of copyright and related 
rights.
I am writing as a consumer.
On para. 2.2.3.1. (Term Directive - Duration of related rights):
I strongly support the position to maintain the status quo, i.e. not to 
extend the term of protection for related rights. I entirely subscribe 
the reasons expressed in the Working Paper in this respect. The internal 
market is not prejudiced by the status quo, since the same term of 50 
years is applied by all member States; I think to raise this term to 70, 
or even 95 years would be a totally unnecessary measure, that would 
stifle creativity an the production of new works.
On para. 2.2.3.2. (Criteria for calculating the term of protection in 
the musical sector):
I share the view that, if harmonisation is required, the harmonised 
criterion should be that co-written musical works are regarded as 
collective works, in order to ensure there is no unjust disparity 
between authors of individual works and authors of co-written works (the 
criterion of the last surviving author clearly gives an unjust advantage 
to the author that died first).
I ask that my contribution is put on the website, but that my e-mail is 
removed for anti-spam reasons.
Thank You
Signed

 Thank You
Pretty good, and completely comprehensible as far as the English goes.
-- 
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water"  Ibn Khaldun
My .
mac.com
 address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

 Pretty good, and completely comprehensible as far as the English goes.
I wonder if there is a more polite way of "asking".
And, I was thinking, maybe I should've added "Sincerely yours" at the end?
Thanks again,
Ben

 are giving an extra-legal protection to the other author. For instance, 
It was "extra legal protection" (without the hyphen).
Bye,
Ben

 not grammatically wrong.
Is it not?
[...]
Bye, FB
-- 
Se dico "siedi!" manca l'oggetto.
Siedo chi? Lei o me?
(da it.cultura.linguistica.italiano)

 Is it not?
Questo è veramente troppo formale.
Devi sforzarti di parlare come noi comuni mortali...
-- 
Mary



Uffi. I thought it could be used at least emphatically. I've also heard
"Can you not understand?" ("Do you really not understand?").
Bye, FB
-- 
"Che cos'è un fallo da tergo? E non stiamo parlando della tua vita
privata."
(Intervista della Gialappa's Band a Elisabetta Canalis)

 Is it not?
Io avrei scitto "...a totally unnecessary measure that would stifle...",
senza la virgola, come già accennato da Alan. Il testo dopo "that" spiega
perché la misura è tenuta "totally unnecessary"
-- 
Xakero

 the reasons expressed in the Working Paper in this respect. The internal 
Ho i miei dubbi su "subsribe the reason". Io direi concur "with the reason"
-- 
Xakero

 perché la misura è tenuta "totally unnecessary"
Preciso.




I wondered whether ", that" actually wasn't  grammatically wrong. 
Bye, FB


 I wondered whether ", that" actually wasn't  grammatically wrong. 
With the comma, it is wrong, in my book (cioè la mia antiquata testa dura)
-- 
Xakero

 wrote:

It is certainly bad style. I won't get into grammatical arguments if I
can avoid them.  :)
"that" or "comma which" is a very good guide, although not 100%
infallible. And it is often considered good manners to use "who" or
(very rarely these days) "whom" rather than "that" if a person is
referred to.
Esempi:
This was the plan that would make us all rich. "That" introduces some
sort of expansion.
This was the plan, which the poor told us would make us all rich, and
turned us all into paupers.
This is the house that Jack built.
This house, which Jack built, is being sold for EU 200,000
That was the force that saw us through the darkest years.
Which was the force that saw us through the darkest years? It was our
belief in Ghu.
Subtle stuff.


 "Can you not understand?" ("Do you really not understand?").
Hai ragione, FB, almeno secondo me, nei due casi. Si', e' formale.
