The paragraph is not arguing that Greek writing was derived from Phoenician: it assumes that as a well-known fact – “After all, the Greeks learned alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians”. The issue that it is discussing is when Greek writing was first derived from Phoenician, and it discusses that issue on the basis of when the two languages were written both left-to-right and right-to-left, and when they were consistently written left-to-right.
confused with your post.
see **RED **marks . you made two opposite views in two places.
Overall, after reading the whole , I became more confused.
Thanks for your post anyway.
"The paragraph is not arguing that Greek writing was derived from Phoenician: it assumes that as a well-known fact – "
He’s not saying that Greek was not derived from Phoenician.
He’s saying that the paragraph is not making that point - not because the point is incorrect but because it makes the assumption that it (Greek derived from Phoenician ) is already accepted.
Here are few facts I take from the para …they are
-
Greek inscriptions were left to right and also right to left .
-
Phoenician was consistently written from right to left .
-
Greek was derived from Phoenician.
=>well, this implies Greek were smart and they improvised the scripting both sides i.e ( adopting right to left from Phoenician ) and left to right by their own.
Hopefully , My interpretation is correct now.
Also, when it says
…And although Phoenician writing was originally inconsistent in direction, by the eighth century B.C. Phoenician was consistently written from right to left and had been for about two centuries.
two centuries = two centuries before B.C ( because Greek inscription were after 8th century BC …this is an opportunity to adoption )
NO.
Phoenician was FIRST written in both directions (Phoenician writing was originally inconsistent in direction). 200 years BEFORE the 8th Century BC, Phoenician writing become consistent in direction. (by the eighth century B.C. Phoenician was consistently written from right to left and had been for about two centuries)
This helps tell you WHEN the Greeks adopted the Phoenician writing system. They did so BEFORE the Phoenician system became unidirectional.
comments are in RED …my understanding and my query
An example. Suppose I say:
The sky is blue, and it is the reflection of this blue color that makes oceans appear to be blue.
In this sentence, I am not “arguing” that the sky is blue: I am assuming it is a well-known fact and simply stating it. I am “arguing” (or “explaining” would be a better word) that oceans are blue because of the blue sky.
In the same way, your paragraph does not “argue” that Greek writing was derived from Phoenician: it assumes that as a well-known fact and simply states it.
Correct. Doing something the *same *way all the time is “consistent.” Doing it different ways is “inconsistent.”
“Was” indicates past tense; “had been” indicates actions occuring before the primary past tense action. Examples:
I was tired yesterday because I had been up all night.
“I was tired” indicates I was tired in the past (yesterday, in fact), and “had been” meand that “I had been up all night” BEFORE I was tired.
Bob was driving and he knew he shouldn’t because he had been drinking.
Bob was driving (and also “knew he shouldn’t”) sometime in the past, and “had been” indicated that his drinking occured BEFORE his driving.
I was typing, and had been for ten minutes.
I “was” typing sometime in the past, and ALSO I “had been” typing for ten minutes BEFORE that.
In that same way, Phoenician was consistently written from right to left sometime in the past (the eighth century BC, to be precise) and ALSO it “had been” written the same way for about two centuries BEFORE that.
[quote=“Hello_Again, post:212, topic:545390”]
Or finding volunteers to help with homework?
Basically, the author is saying, "We know that the Greek alphabet came from the Phoenician alphabet. However, we aren’t sure when. I argue that it came from Phoenician at a time when Phoenican was written in both directions.
The first word “when” in my post is a short one, but it does affect the meaning of the whole sentence. Here, I’ll put it in red for you:
OK. Thanks . I have gone through the posts . Just awesome . very nice . It was very much helpful.
Please look at this English text…
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with [COLOR=“Red”]radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.[/COLOR]
I have never gone to US / UK . I’m not sure what is a radar detectors …but after reading this text , it seems to me its a device which captures the speed of the car and speed limit of the road and generate an alert if the speed limit is violated…am I correct ?
To learn more I saw this YouTube video for Car Radar detectors here
is not it the same device which the para says ? …in the video,I see its giving alert sometimes …I guess those are probably for violating speed limit .
My Question is, every CAR has a speedometer to check speed . and every Road has a milestone mentioned for speed limit . That would do the suffice. why this radar detector then ? is it just because they quickly alert you if you are on high speed and don’t have to keep an eye on speedometer ? is it just for convenience these devices are there ?
Interestingly, how does the radar get the speed of the car and speed limit of the road ? are these information coming from satellites and captured by radar to generate alert ?
I’m sorry, I am not familiar with the US transport system hence this is a silly doubt. We don’t use radar detector while driving.
In many places, policemen use “radar guns,” which emit radio waves (radar) and from the reflection calculate vehicle speed. Although police don’t *always *use radar guns, in the places where they do, they are used a lot. It is common for police to wait near curves or hills and check the speed of oncoming cars using the radar guns, because drivers can’t see the police car around the corner or over the hill.
A “radar detector” in a car detects the radio waves emitted by the radar gun, and it can do so before the driver sees the policeman, or the policeman sees the driver. This gives the driver time to slow down so he’s going the legal speed limit.
So the radar detector doesn’t tell you what speed you’re going, or whether you’re going faster than the speed limit, but rather it tells you that someone is using a radar gun nearby.
Thanks …that was just wonderful …Exactly I need to know that. …it was very much helpful . That removed lot of misconception.
Now as per the para , I think those 33% drivers who had radar detectors in the car but still got the police ticket are just reckless drivers …they are regular ticket getter 
its their habit to drive fast and violate rules. Otherwise , what on the earth they are not listening to radars !
Please look at this English text…
When demand for a factory’s products is high, more money is spent at the factory for safety precautions and machinery maintenance than when demand is low. Thus the average number of on-the-job accidents per employee each month should be lower during periods when demand is high than when demand is low and [COLOR=“Red”]less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance.[/COLOR]
less money is available…when ?
is it when demand is high **or **demand is low ?
>>>Thus the average number of on-the-job accidents per employee each month should be lower during periods when demand is high than when demand is low and less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance.
I’m not comfortable with this construction . less money is available is attached to which bold part in the above ?
When demand is low. The “and” between “demand is low” and “less money…” connects them strongly, especially since the previous sentence just asserted the causal connection.
Parse it like this:
Thus (the average number of on-the-job accidents per employee each month) should be lower during periods (when demand is high) than (when demand is low and less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance).
Of course, in real life, I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
My comments are in RED below
There is some ambiguity in this sentence. It could be parsed as two seperate statements connected with “and” like this:
(Thus the average number of on-the-job accidents per employee each month should be lower during periods when demand is high than when demand is low) and (less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance).
However, this is NOT the sense the author is trying to convey. I know this for a few reasons. The first is because the second statement (“less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance”) appears to be unrelated to the first for exactly the reasons you point out: WHEN is less money available? It is poor form to combine two unrelated thoughts together without a clear connection, so it’s unlikely the author intended the sentence to be parsed that way.
It is more likely the author intended the sentence to be parsed this way:
Thus the average number of on-the-job accidents per employee each month should be lower (during periods when demand is high) than (when demand is low and less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance).
In other words, the last phrase (“less money is available for safety precautions and machinery maintenance”) is part of the explanation for WHEN on-the-job accidents are high.
I know the author intended this in part because of context: The previous sentence says “When demand for a factory’s products is high, more money is spent at the factory for safety precautions and machinery maintenance than when demand is low.” Thus, the author has *already said * that “high demand” and “money spent factory for safety precautions” are linked. Therefore, “low demand” and “*less *money spent factory for safety precautions” are ALSO linked, and the second sentence merely reinforces the linkage.
I also know the author intended this because I’m following the author’s argument. The author is examining the *relationship *between demand, money spent on safety, and on-the-job accidents. Parsing the sentence this way reinforces the relationships between these items.
Thats an wonderful explanation. very nice . You are an awesome person . Thanks for your time . I’m happy …this part is clear.
Please look at this English …
A sudden increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa occurred in the tenth century. [COLOR=“Red”]Historians explain this increase as the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory and argue on this basis that the important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began at this period.[/COLOR]
>>>>Historians explain this increase as the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory
… this part is not clear.
what historian is saying ? see the bold above …what does that mean ?
“Historians” isn’t referring to a specific person or persons. Instead, it’s saying that most historians agree on this matter. You could pick any group of historians at random and they probably would say the same thing.
“Opening up” in this context means “becoming accessible to outsiders”. The elephants were there all along, but until the tenth century the North Africans couldn’t get to them.
Another way to write this sentence would be: “Most historians agree that in the tenth century the North Africans gained access to a new territory that was a good source of ivory. As a result, production of ivory artifacts increased.”
Production of ivory artifacts didn’t increase because suddenly more people wanted ivory, or because someone invented a new way to carve ivory that was more efficient. It increased because the North Africans discovered a new source of ivory.