Please, correct language mistakes in this text (this time it's a short one :))
- Thread starter Squonk
- Start date
"The paper deals with the problem of the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands conquered from the Arabs (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) in the Xth and XIth centuries. All of them were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the VIIth century, and the question presented by this paper is if the Byzantines regarded these conquests as recapture and liberation, and if the history of these lands could have been one of the factors encouraging Byzantine expansion in this region. The answer appears to be negative. Byzantine sources only mention previous Byzantine possession of a land or a city if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture by the imperial forces. There are not many serious indications that the fact that Cilicia and Syria belonged to the Byzantine Empire before Arab conquests played a role in the Byzantine politics of the X-XI centuries."
I'm not sure if you want to leave the roman numerals in there or not, so I didn't touch them. Seems pretty odd to me, but I'm only a high school student.
Pretty much everything checks out. I just moved what was in the parenthesis and reworded one or two things.
EDIT: Perhaps the parenthesis should be at the very end of that sentence. I don't know
In the first sentence instead of problem I would say question. Problem implies there's something wrong. Also, I would definitely cut out "the fact" and just say, serious indications that Cilicia and Syria ..... Those are the only two things I would definitely change.
I would use the indefinite article (a) before recapture but I don't know if it's really necessary. Also, I wish there was someone who was better with grammar than I am because I'm not sure if you should use the subjunctive in the phrase - if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture. Were would be used in the subjunctive. I think the sentence is an example of the 2nd conditional which would mean using 'were' is better but I'm not certain of this. Either way it's a pretty minor grammar point and probably many people would notice.
I personally think the Roman numerals are a good idea.
I would use the indefinite article (a) before recapture but I don't know if it's really necessary. Also, I wish there was someone who was better with grammar than I am because I'm not sure if you should use the subjunctive in the phrase - if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture. Were would be used in the subjunctive. I think the sentence is an example of the 2nd conditional which would mean using 'were' is better but I'm not certain of this. Either way it's a pretty minor grammar point and probably many people would notice.
I personally think the Roman numerals are a good idea.
I quoted the entire thing, just for you.
Oh, that's it?
I'd probably write it as,
"The [this?] paper deals with the problem of the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) which were taken by the Byzantine Empire from the Arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries. All of them were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the seventh century, and the question presented by this paper is whether the Byzantines considered these campaigns to be liberations, and whether the history [what in particular about their history?] of these lands could have been one of the factors encouraging Byzantine expansion in this region. The answer appears to be negative. [see below] Byzantine sources only mention previous Byzantine possession of a territory or a city if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture by imperial forces. There are not many indications that the fact that Cilicia and Syria belonged to the Byzantine Empire before the Arab conquests played a role in the Byzantine politics of the tenth and eleventh centuries."
Overall, looks fairly good, relatively minor changes. On the subject of "the answer appears to be negative": that wording is awkward. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change it, though. Perhaps I would change it to "The answer appears to be that they did not."
I'd probably write it as,
"The [this?] paper deals with the problem of the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) which were taken by the Byzantine Empire from the Arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries. All of them were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the seventh century, and the question presented by this paper is whether the Byzantines considered these campaigns to be liberations, and whether the history [what in particular about their history?] of these lands could have been one of the factors encouraging Byzantine expansion in this region. The answer appears to be negative. [see below] Byzantine sources only mention previous Byzantine possession of a territory or a city if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture by imperial forces. There are not many indications that the fact that Cilicia and Syria belonged to the Byzantine Empire before the Arab conquests played a role in the Byzantine politics of the tenth and eleventh centuries."
Overall, looks fairly good, relatively minor changes. On the subject of "the answer appears to be negative": that wording is awkward. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change it, though. Perhaps I would change it to "The answer appears to be that they did not."
