0

I'm discombobulated.

Should it be like

1.It's difficult to reconcile (the demands of my job) and (the desire to be a good father).

Or

2.It's difficult to reconcile (the demands of my job) and (the demands of the desire to be a good father).

Here is another example.

Should it be like

3.It was plain that he was reconciling (the claims of compatriot courtesy) and (official rectitude).

Or

4.It was plain that he was reconciling (the claims of compatriot courtesy) and (the claims of official rectitude).

1

The verb reconcile is fairly forgiving with respect to the things involved.

Federal investigators said that his lavish lifestyle could not be reconciled with the low income he reported on his tax forms.

So your first sentence is fine. You could also say

It's difficult to reconcile my job and being a good father.

But "the demands of the desire to be" is not something you'd want to say.

It's difficult to reconcile the demands of my job with the demands of being a good father.

We can reconcile A and B.

We can reconcile A with B.

The meaning is the same.

  • Many thanks.I've edited my question just now.How about the second case? – dubina Sep 15 '18 at 18:16
  • @dubina: It's grammatical but the repetition of the claims of is unnecessary. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 15 '18 at 18:19
  • So do Sentence 3 and Sentence 4 mean the same? – dubina Sep 15 '18 at 18:24
  • @dubina: Yes, they resolve to the same idea: he is constrained by compatriot courtesy and by official rectitude, and to the extent that they impose contradictory constraints upon him, he must try to reconcile their differences in some way. Repeating the claims of does not add new information. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 15 '18 at 18:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.