2

  1. No sign you are getting close to it.

  2. No sign you are close to it.

Do they have the same meaning? To me, the first sentence reveals an action of the subject, like walking. The second sentence is just telling the location that the subject standing is not close to it. Both of them saying the petty much the same meaning. Am I understanding it right? Any mistake in the sentence?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    There are omitted words in each sentence: "there is" and "that": Full sentence would be "There is no sign that you are getting close to it." (same in the second). The sentences are fine, your understanding is generally correct -- motion, or lack thereof in (1) and location in (2).
    – Victor Bazarov
    Sep 12, 2015 at 21:46
  • Will native speaker say that in spoken English? I mean omitting ”there is” and "that" in spoken English.
    – Kam
    Sep 12, 2015 at 23:47
  • Yes, it's valid. I mentioned omitted words to help understanding the structure of the sentence.
    – Victor Bazarov
    Sep 13, 2015 at 11:37
  • Both are valid. Both are omitting words and are somewhat terse. With contractions in casual speech: "There's no sign you're close." is probably how I would convey its meaning.
    – Michael Dorgan
    Sep 14, 2015 at 22:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

No, they do not quite have the same meaning.

"You are getting close to..." implies that the person is moving. For example, they are searching for the sign, but they are not "getting close to any".

"You are close to..." implies that the person is still. They may have been searching for it, but they are not currently "close to" any signs.

Also, your sentences don't make very much sense. Here's what they should be replaced with:

"No sign you are getting close to it."

Replacement: "There is no sign you are getting close to" (it was removed from the end of the sentence, and there is was added to the beginning)
Better Replacement: "You are not getting close to the sign"


"No sign you are close to it."

Replacement: "There is no sign you are close to" (it was removed from the end of the sentence, and there is was added to the beginning)
Better Replacement: "You are not close to the sign"

For example, If my friend was searching for a sign that I placed, and was walking around and could not find it, they might ask me for a hint. So, I would say "You are not getting close to the sign". (My friend is moving, and is either getting closer or farther from the sign as he moves)

For the second sentence, if my friend was about do do a flip, and wanted to make sure that the sign was not in their way, they could ask if they were close to it, to which I would respond "You are not close to the sign". (My friend just wants to know his surroundings, he's not currently trying to get closer or farther away from the sign).

"getting closer to" should only be used if the subject is moving and wanted to know where the object was in relation to them. "close to" should be used if the subject is not moving, and doesn't really care about exactly where the object is

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .