Exploring the Impact of Social and Economic Factors on Fertility Forecasts

[lisab]

Please see this text...

Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction.

I am not able to conceptualize this. Can you give some example to get this point . my troubled area is "die off with their host’s extinction" .

an example will be better to grasp this . I am not getting the connection properly.

any comments ?

That doesn't sound like it was written by a native speaker...just a hunch. But I think I understand what the writer is trying to say.

I think it means: if a disease kills its victims too quickly, then there will not be enough time for it to spread it to new victims. The outbreak will die out quickly, in that case.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it means: if a disease kills its victims too quickly, then there will not be enough time for it to spread it to new victims. The outbreak will die out quickly, in that case.

It would help to have a little more context in the quote, so we can tell why the author has stated it, and thus tell his meaning.

That being said, I agree with lisab's interpretation.

Diseases that do not immediately kill their hosts (and thus themelves shortly thereafter) will tend to be selected-for. A disease that kills its host too quickly will not have much change to propogate.

BTW, the "diseases" in this context are limited to living invaders: bacteria, parasites, virii. Diabetes and cancer are diseases too, but they are not alive and so can not modify their behaviours to affect their hosts.

 

[momentum]

<scrapped>

 

[momentum]

do they differ in meaning ?

john, who passed the test, was elated.john who passed the test was elated.


see , I just removed commas in the second . I probably have seen this kind of usage in newspaper. do they differ in meaning ?

 

[DaveC426913]

do they differ in meaning ?

john, who passed the test, was elated.


john who passed the test was elated.


see , I just removed commas in the second . I probably have seen this kind of usage in newspaper. do they differ in meaning ?

The former is correct grammar. Dropping commas can be bad, often resulting in ambiguity or misrepresentation (in the same vein as the famous "Eats Shoots and Leaves") but I can't see any subject/object ambiguity that creeps in in the latter. Though it does read a bit awkward.

Verdict: you should stick to the former, though I can't cite you for an offense for the latter.

 

[momentum]

The former is correct grammar. Dropping commas can be bad, often resulting in ambiguity or misrepresentation (in the same vein as the famous "Eats Shoots and Leaves") but I can't see any subject/object ambiguity that creeps in in the latter. Though it does read a bit awkward.

Verdict: you should stick to the former, though I can't cite you for an offense for the latter.

Ok ..thanks ...glad to know this info.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok ..thanks ...glad to know this info.

Do you know the story of the Panda that walks into a restaurant with a loaded gun?

 

[momentum]

Do you know the story of the Panda that walks into a restaurant with a loaded gun?

No...why ?

 

[DaveC426913]

A panda walks into a restaurant, sits down and orders a sandwich. He eats the sandwich, pulls out a gun, and shoots the waiter dead.

As the panda stands up to leave, the manager shouts, “Hey! Where are you going? You just shot my waiter and you didn’t pay for your sandwich!”

The panda yells back at the manager, “Hey man, I’m a PANDA! Look it up!”

The manager opens his dictionary and sees the following definition for panda: “A tree dwelling marsupial of Asian origin, characterized by distinct black and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.”

 

[momentum]

ha ha ha ...good stuff

 

[momentum]

Here I am writing a English in two ways ..

Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company, and they are now the largest
employers in the county.
Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company which is now the largest employer in
the county.


are these correct ? I experimented this way just to know whether I can use 'employer' to persons as well as for a company . In first place I used for persons and in second place its for a company .

comments please.

 

[lisab]

Here I am writing a English in two ways ..

Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company, and they are now the largest
employers in the county.


Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company which is now the largest employer in
the county.

are these correct ? I experimented this way just to know whether I can use 'employer' to persons as well as for a company . In first place I used for persons and in second place its for a company .

comments please.

In the first sentence, change "employers" to "employer": "they are the largest employer".

Btw, what exactly is an organic plastic company...is that like free-range plastic ?

 

[DaveC426913]

In the first sentence, change "employers" to "employer": "they are the largest employer".

I'm not sure I agree.

 

[lisab]

I'm not sure I agree.

Hmm...now that I think about it, I would change it to:

Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company, and it is now the largest employer in the county.

 

[momentum]

I'm not sure I agree.

just would like to know ...why ? want to listen your voice.

In fact , me too was not happy ...my reason was "they" is a plural ...so expecting "employers" instead of "employer".

 

[momentum]

Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company, and it is now the largest employer in the county

in second we had ..

Sam and Frank founded an organic plastic company which is now the largest employer in
the county.

Both are correct now I believe... btw, I love the second one though ...because i just get a feel for it :) .. what the native will pick ?

 

[tiny-tim]

", who …"

john, who passed the test, was elated.

john who passed the test was elated.

John, presumably,is an identified person.

A better question would be …
The student, who passed the test, was elated.

The student who passed the test was elated.

The first one assumes you were always talking about only one student … that is the student you are still talking about … he passed the test, he was elated.

The second one assumes you were talking about many students, but only one of them passed the test … that is the student you have now selected to talk about … he was elated.

 

[momentum]

John, presumably,is an identified person.

A better question would be …
The student, who passed the test, was elated.

The student who passed the test was elated.

The first one assumes you were always talking about only one student … that is the student you are still talking about … he passed the test, he was elated.

The second one assumes you were talking about many students, but only one of them passed the test … that is the student you have now selected to talk about … he was elated.

you almost killed me!

I can't chase such granular level difference !

 

[DaveC426913]

you almost killed me!

such granular level difference !

It would make more sense in context. Presumably this sentence is part of a paragraph.

A student's parents decided to see how the educational system was faring, so they took the test along with the student. Too bad they failed. The student, who passed the test, was elated.
versus
That prof is a particularly hard marker, he likes to fail most of his students. In this case, all but one failed. The student who passed the test was elated.

In the former case the student is the subject.
In the latter case the student-who-passed-the-test is the subject.


Actually, this is wrong. Corrected:

That prof is a particularly hard marker, he likes to fail most of his students. In this case, all but one failed. The student that passed the test was elated.

 

[momentum]

Please see this English text ...

Healthy-Oh’s breakfast cereal is one-of-kinda good for you! Among breakfast cereals,
only Healthy-Oh’s has five grams of psyllium fiber. Psyllium fiber is good for your heart and helps you to lose weight. Doctors and nutritionists recommend at least twenty grams of fiber per day, so why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber the easy way with Healthy-Oh’s cereal?


I don't get the connection of saying why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber ? what is so special about 25% ?

I don't get this part straight.

 

[Evo]

Please see this English text ...

Healthy-Oh’s breakfast cereal is one-of-kinda good for you! Among breakfast cereals,
only Healthy-Oh’s has five grams of psyllium fiber. Psyllium fiber is good for your heart and helps you to lose weight. Doctors and nutritionists recommend at least twenty grams of fiber per day, so why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber the easy way with Healthy-Oh’s cereal?


I don't get the connection of saying why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber ? what is so special about 25% ?

I don't get this part straight.

They're telling people that they can get 1/4th of their daily fiber with one serving. Most Americans will probably eat 2-4 servings in one bowl/meal (Americans don't usually strictly measure a single portion). So 25% in a single portion size is significant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please see this English text ...

Healthy-Oh’s breakfast cereal is one-of-kinda good for you! Among breakfast cereals,
only Healthy-Oh’s has five grams of psyllium fiber. Psyllium fiber is good for your heart and helps you to lose weight. Doctors and nutritionists recommend at least twenty grams of fiber per day, so why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber the easy way with Healthy-Oh’s cereal?


I don't get the connection of saying why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber ? what is so special about 25% ?

I don't get this part straight.

1] Advertizing copy is a whole world unto itself.

2] What is special about 25% is that 25% is all they can offer.

3] It is not easy to get adequate fibre in your diet. Most foods have, at best, 1 or 2 grams of fibre per serving. To get 100% of your daily recommended requirement (25-35g) without blowing out your calorie intake, you'll need to be judicious about what you eat. This cereal will get you a significant way (1/4 of the way) to the goal. That's pretty good, and well-worth noting.

 

[momentum]

They're telling people that they can get 1/4th of their daily fiber with one serving. Most Americans will probably eat 2-4 servings in one bowl/meal (Americans don't usually strictly measure a single portion). So 25% in a single portion size is significant.

Not clear.

Let me tell why I'm finding difficulty ... is not there some maths involved here ?
they say "Among breakfast cereals, only Healthy-Oh’s has five grams of psyllium fiber."

is it from one serve/ plate ?


they say , Doctors and nutritionists recommend at least twenty grams of fiber per day

Ok...so, if the above is true then in order to get 20 gms fiber , we need 20/5 = 4 serves/plates.


they say , so why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber the easy way with Healthy-Oh’s cereal?

how this 'twenty-five percent of your fiber' connected here ?

 

[Evo]

Not clear.

Let me tell why I'm finding difficulty ... is not there some maths involved here ?
they say "Among breakfast cereals, only Healthy-Oh’s has five grams of psyllium fiber."

is it from one serve/ plate ?


they say , Doctors and nutritionists recommend at least twenty grams of fiber per day

Ok...so, if the above is true then in order to get 20 gms fiber , we need 20/5 = 4 serves/plates.


they say , so why not get twenty-five percent of your fiber the easy way with Healthy-Oh’s cereal?

how this 'twenty-five percent of your fiber' connected here ?

5 gms is 25% of 20 gms.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me tell why I'm finding difficulty ... is not there some maths involved here ?

OK, is your confusion still about the meaning of the text? Or is it about the math?

 

[momentum]

5 gms is 25% of 20 gms.

GREAT . I got the connection now . Its clear . happy .

thanks for the time.

 

[momentum]

OK, is your confusion still about the meaning of the text? Or is it about the math?

meaning of the text been complicated by the math :)
Now, I have caught it . for a moment i could not understand why they are saying 25% ..the catch was 5 gms is 25% of 20 gms . Its just alternate way of saying :)

Its like , I'll come after 1 minute OR I'll come after 60 seconds .

Anyway, things are pretty clear ...feeling comfort ...thanks for your time

 

[momentum]

interest rate increase was announced today, and along with the continued robust housing sales, this seems to indicate that the housing market remains strong.

I have no idea what's the relation with interest rate vs housing sale ?

If the housing Loan interest rate increases , does the housing sale really increases ? is it ?
I am not sure what they are trying to say .

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

interest rate increase was announced today, and along with the continued robust housing sales, this seems to indicate that the housing market remains strong.

I have no idea what's the relation with interest rate vs housing sale ?

If the housing Loan interest rate increases , does the housing sale really increases ? is it ?
I am not sure what they are trying to say .

There may be something more in the context that I am missing but it seems to me to be saying that house sales are steady (or increasing?) despite an increase in loan interest rates. I believe that house sales would normally decrease in response to higher interest rates but the market is apparently strong enough that it does not seem to have been effected by the increase.

 

[momentum]

but the market is apparently strong enough that it does not seem to have been effected by the increase.

not clear.

what do you mean by 'strong enough' ? can you please explain this part ?

why its not effected ? what type of situation you are referring ? any example ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

not clear.

what do you mean by 'strong enough' ? can you please explain this part ?

why its not effected ? what type of situation you are referring ? any example ?

Sorry, I am not particularly knowledgeable of the mortgage industry so I am unsure how to illustrate with a specific example.

What I am seeing as the meaning is that people are still buying houses, there is demand, even though the cost of purchasing a house has increased due to the increase in interest rates. So one might see this as an indicator that the housing market is doing well, apparently so well that buyers are not deterred by increased cost.

 

[f95toli]

I hope you don't mind if I borrow your thread momentum, but since I too have a language question I figured this is the best place for it.

I am trying to write something where I need to be a bit witty

Does something like this make sense?

People tell me that they value my opinions highly, perhaps they mean that I should be less generous with such a valuable commodity...

This is not the exact phrase I was planning to use, but my question is if it is OK to use "valuable commodity" to refer (as part of a joke) to "highly valued opinion"?

And yes, I do realize that it is not a very funny joke.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does something like this make sense?

People tell me that they value my opinions highly, perhaps they mean that I should be less generous with such a valuable commodity...

This is not the exact phrase I was planning to use, but my question is if it is OK to use "valuable commodity" to refer (as part of a joke) to "highly valued opinion"?

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Evo]

I hope you don't mind if I borrow your thread momentum, but since I too have a language question I figured this is the best place for it.

I am trying to write something where I need to be a bit witty

Does something like this make sense?

People tell me that they value my opinions highly, perhaps they mean that I should be less generous with such a valuable commodity...

This is not the exact phrase I was planning to use, but my question is if it is OK to use "valuable commodity" to refer (as part of a joke) to "highly valued opinion"?

And yes, I do realize that it is not a very funny joke.

In America a 'commodity' has come to mean something which is widespread in use, but of little value.

So "valuable commodity" would be humorous, although not really what you mean or would be a fair evaluation.

 

[DaveC426913]

In America a 'commodity' has come to mean something which is widespread in use, but of little value.

So "valuable commodity" would be humorous, although not really what you mean or would be a fair evaluation.

That's a slightly more cynical definition than I am used to. Commodity to me usually just means something that can be bought, sold or traded. No real negative spin.

Water is a valuable commodity in Vegas.
Since grocery stores have put a 5c surcharge on grocery bags, our supplies have dwindled, and now plastic bags have become a valuable commodity.

Then again, there is a cynical element to buying, selling or trading human skills and traits...