Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

random "lay" readers, editors, writers, anyone with an opinion about words.

57 replies

hatwoman · 05/12/2006 19:39

do you react against the following sentence or do you think you get the gist?

According to international law combatants must distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects.

OP posts:
lulumama · 05/12/2006 19:40

needs a comma after law.....IMO!

lulumama · 05/12/2006 19:40

possibly a semi colon after civilians or !!!!!!!!

Carmenere · 05/12/2006 19:41

Yep missing a comma.

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 19:44

it's a horrible sentence imo. what's a 'civilian object' when it's at home? and it doesn't seem reasonable to compare 'miliary objectives' with 'civilians' - a civilian is a non military person and surely a miliary objective is an idea, like "bomb Slough"? Or maybe a military objective is now the same as the thing to be hit, is it?

Anyway, I find it confusing. It would potentially be less so if the last 3 words (or civilian objects) weren't there IF you understood that a military objective and a civilian were comparable. If they are. God, sorry, probably not much help! I've nearly confused myself

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 19:46

If the idea it's meant to convey is that according to international law people at war must clearly distinguish between military installations/people and civilians then I think it would be better to say so.

tamum · 05/12/2006 19:48

It's not easy on the eye, is it, but I do get the gist. The problem is that you presumably can't say "civilian objective" as it would imply that there might be legitimate civilian targets. I think it would read better if there was a way of turning "civilians or civilian objects" into a single term. Something like civilian territory only better. Not much help...

WhenSantaWentQuietlyMad · 05/12/2006 19:49

Yes, agree with the comma. I would reword the last bit about military objectives, because although you can get the gist of it, it doesn't sound like it makes actual sense.

Original poster
hatwoman · 05/12/2006 20:06

this is so enlightening! I'm not going to respond yet though, in case there are any more takers.

OP posts:
Original poster
hatwoman · 05/12/2006 20:07

except to ask where people think this comma ought to go?

OP posts:
tamum · 05/12/2006 20:09

After law, I would say

foxinsocks · 05/12/2006 20:12

I am crapola at grammar but would definitely put one comma after law and may even consider one after military objectives (before that other 'and' which I'm sure is some never ever grammar rule I can't remember!).

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 20:14

it's an Oxford comma isn't it, when you do that? Put a comma before 'and' I mean.

JanH · 05/12/2006 20:16

I would put just one comma, after objectives.

I think.

coolmama · 05/12/2006 20:18

I would reword the entire sentence as it makes no sense to me at all!

Original poster
hatwoman · 05/12/2006 20:18

ok, don;t get bogged down in commas, it's the other stuff I really care about

OP posts:
lulumama · 05/12/2006 20:19

as far as the meaning of the sentence..i think WWW made the point well......

WhenSantaWentQuietlyMad · 05/12/2006 20:19

Having reflected, I am not sure a comma is needed, but I am sure that the military objectives or civilans bit is comparing unlike items and therefore I don't think it makes sense.

dara · 05/12/2006 20:21

According to international law combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian ones?
According to international law combatants must try to ensure civilians are unharmed while pursuing military objectives?

coolmama · 05/12/2006 20:22

Under international law, combatants must distinguish between military targets, civilians and civilian objects (Still can't come up with something better for civilian objects - but, give me a mo to think......)

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 20:23

Yes, I like dara's first sentence IF that's the correct meaning.

Hatwoman, tell us why, please?

Ellbell · 05/12/2006 20:24

Ah, you know I can't resist threads like this (I am sooooooo sad

According to international law[,] combatants must distinguish between military objectives and [actions likely to impact on] civilians or civilian [effects/property/areas ???].

The comma after 'law' is essential, I think.

Tamum is right that 'military objectives' is not directly comparable with 'civilians/civilian objects' which is why I suggest adding 'actions likely to impact on' (or words to that effect). And I take 'objects' to mean 'property', which might be clearer, although you might want something broader, like 'effects' or 'areas'.

No comma before the 'and' or before the 'or'.

All the above only suggestions, of course. What do you think?

JanH · 05/12/2006 20:25

Does this imply that eg Israeli soldiers must not aim at civilian houses believed to shelter eg Palestinian terrorists, even if artillery has been aimed at eg Israeli civilians from those houses, against international law?

wickedwinterwitch · 05/12/2006 20:25

but I'd put a comma after law, so

"According to international law, combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian ones."

or

"According to international law, combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets."

or even

"International law says combatants must distinguish between military and civilian targets."

Ellbell · 05/12/2006 20:27

dara's first sentence changes the meaning, since it suggests that civilians may be actual targets (i.e. that they may be targetted on purpose),whereas I think that hatwoman's original sentence leaves open the possibility that effects on civilians may be accidental ('collateral damage' or whatever they call it).

dara · 05/12/2006 20:27

Or, given that there are no such things are 'civilian targets' (she says, on further thought, what about,
'must distinguish between military targets and civilian areas'.

It is hard because I am not 100% certain what you mean, which I suppose indicates that your first sentence could be a little clearer.