This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
hooks
who's going to argue the case for you
This question was closed without grading. Reason: Other
Sep 22, 2021 20:55
2 yrs ago
26 viewers *
English term

U.S. checking account or savings account is required to use XXX.

Non-PRO English Bus/Financial Finance (general) English grammar
Is that phrase grammatically correct?

Something bother me about it as soon as I saw it. I would have written it differently, but I did not write it; I am just proofing the text and I need to be 100% sure that something is actually an error before I change it

One of the things that bothered me is the verb in singular.

U.S. checking account or savings account is / are required to use XXX.

The absence of the article “a” also bothered me slightly, but that could be fixed by also removing the verb and leave the phrase as follows:

U.S. checking account or savings account required to use XXX.

That would be my own choice, especially when the medium is social media OLV, where less is best.
But I don’t want to change anything unless I am unequivocally certain that the current version is incorrect.
Responses
4 -2 The possession of a U.S. checking account or savings account is required to use XXX.
Change log

Sep 23, 2021 07:24: writeaway changed "Field (write-in)" from "English" to "English grammar"

Sep 23, 2021 15:12: Rachel Fell changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

Non-PRO (3): Yvonne Gallagher, Katalin Horváth McClure, Rachel Fell

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

George Rabel (asker) Sep 23, 2021:
Phil et al. Point well taken. I do not claim to possess the same level of mastery of the English language as someone for whom English is the native language AND is also properly educated. Merely being a native speaker is very overrated, in my opinion. In my particular case, the English-language copy that I have the audacity to proofread is written, for the most part, by people with much lesser English skills that my own, so the end result may not be as flawless as if the proofer were a native English-speaker with the proper education, but it is definitely much, much better than whatever I receive.
Yvonne Gallagher Sep 23, 2021:
and yes, it's correct as Phil said because of "OR"
Yvonne Gallagher Sep 23, 2021:
@ Asker I didn't see the deleted comment but I agree with Phil. I don't agree with non-native translation but proofing is a real no-no. Any time a non-native proofed my work in the past there were invariably errors introduced so I quickly dropped those cheapo agencies who use non-natives. I'd never translate into my source languages on a professional level (unless unpaid for friends) and wouldn't even dream of proofing! Don't understand why so many think they can "English" when it's clear they can't
David Hollywood Sep 23, 2021:
When I worked for the IMF the general rule was that you shouldn't be given jobs that required you to translate out of your mother tongue. However, there was a Brazilian who had perfect command of English and had great credentials (Brazilian Central Bank and as good as native speaker).
David Hollywood Sep 23, 2021:
with Phil as it's just shorthand
philgoddard Sep 22, 2021:
Also It's "is", singular. If it said "and" instead of "or", it would be plural, "are". And you don't need to repeat "account".
George Rabel (asker) Sep 22, 2021:
Thank you, Phil I encourage whoever posted the comment to post it again. I am not easily offended. They have every right to hold the opinion that I'm not qualified to proof English texts.
philgoddard Sep 22, 2021:
It's correct. The omission of the definite article is shorthand, and you could include it if you want a full sentence.
I agree with the now-deleted comment about proofing in English. I wouldn't dream of proofing a text in Spanish.

Responses

-2
4 hrs

The possession of a U.S. checking account or savings account is required to use XXX.

or,
You need to have a U.S. checking account or savings account to use XXX.

I don't think the phrase is grammatically correct.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2021-09-23 15:15:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I don't think the phrase is grammatically correct without the indefinite article "A". You don't need an indefinite article if the noun is uncountable. e.g., Chlorine is needed to disinfect water.

The original phrase/sentence is vague. It doesn't say whose checking or savings account.
Peer comment(s):
agree Sajad Neisi
5 hrs
Thank you!
disagree writeaway : You haven't answered the actual question: Is that phrase grammatically correct? /so you did but you answered incorrectly. It is correct!
6 hrs
I did. / Could you explain why an indefinite article is not needed?
disagree Yvonne Gallagher : explanation? And IT IS
12 hrs
Could you explain why an indefinite article is not needed?
disagree AllegroTrans : Your alternative wording is OK but the asker's phrase IS gramatically correct
16 hrs
Could you explain why an indefinite article is not needed?
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search