a period of rapid growth in/with the birth rate of US

< Previous | Next >

nt1611

New Member
Chinese - Hong Kong
this was followed by a period of rapid growth in / with the birth rate of US reaching a peak of 20 percent in 1950

which one is correct and why?
thanks for the response!
 
  • nt1611

    New Member
    Chinese - Hong Kong
    this was followed by a period of rapid growth, in/ with the birth rate of US reaching a peak of 20 percent in 1950.
    why is a "," needed in the middle of the sentence?
     

    Thomas1

    Senior Member
    polszczyzna warszawska
    The sentence in post #1 doesn't containt any comma (there's no punctuation). The one above isn't punctuated correctly either. I think you will have to start a new thread to ask about the comma and provide the full sentence as it is in the source (+ the source itself).
     

    nt1611

    New Member
    Chinese - Hong Kong
    The sentence in post #1 doesn't containt any comma (there's no punctuation). The one above isn't punctuated correctly either. I think you will have to start a new thread to ask about the comma and provide the full sentence as it is in the source (+ the source itself).
    thanks a lot
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    this was followed by a period of rapid growth in / with the birth rate of US reaching a peak of 20 percent in 1950

    which one is correct and why?
    thanks for the response!
    The sentence is either
    (i) this was followed by [a period of rapid growth in the birth rate of US] reaching that reached a peak of 20 percent in 1950

    or

    this was followed by a period of rapid growth [with the birth rate of US reaching a peak of 20 percent in 1950]
     

    Thomas1

    Senior Member
    polszczyzna warszawska
    OK, now I see the reason for a comma after 'growth'. Sorry, Nt1611, I didn't get the point.

    So:
    ...growth in the birth rate...
    or
    ...growth, with the birth rate...

    In the first case, the phrase with 'in the birth rate...' is actually a part of the noun complement and you don't need a comma. In the second case, with 'with', you just add an additional piece of information and you need a comma.
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    In the first case, the phrase with 'in the birth rate...' is actually a part of the noun complement and you don't need a comma. In the second case, with 'with', you just add an additional piece of information and you need a comma.
    I think both parts of that are incorrect.

    The trouble is that "you don't need a comma" and "you need a comma" are not opposites. The former means the comma is not necessary (which does not mean it must be omitted, it means it's optional), the latter means it is compulsory.

    I think that in the first case the comma is not optional, rather its omission is compulsory. In the second case the comma is not compulsory, it is optional. I think it's better with, with "with", but as PaulQ has left it out, he seems to think it's unnecessary.
     

    nt1611

    New Member
    Chinese - Hong Kong
    The sentence is either
    (i) this was followed by [a period of rapid growth in the birth rate of US] reaching that reached a peak of 20 percent in 1950

    or

    this was followed by a period of rapid growth [with the birth rate of US reaching a peak of 20 percent in 1950]
    Why do reaching" need to be changed into" that reaching"?
    [a period of rapid growth in the birth rate of US] + ing as a clause should be fine.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top