0

Looking for an descrpition of a phrase, I came across these definitions:

Definitions for Natural:

1- Being such from birth or by nature.

2- Being such by blood and not by adoption or marriage.

I wonder if I can use "being as such" here as in:

1'- Being as such from birth or by nature.

2'- Being as such by blood and not by adoption or marriage.

Is there a difference in meaning between the versions?

  • No, you can't include as there. Note that in #2 we can confidently say that such refers to [the state of being] related, but in #1 the "referent" of such is undefined. To put it another way, #1 is equivalent to someone saying Being "natural" means being like that from birth or by nature - to which someone else might quite reasonably respond Being like what? Personally, I think the phrasing of those definitions is awkward anyway - they're certainly not useful examples for showing you how you should use English syntax. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Jul 19 at 14:21

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.