axe with parallel side for two-thirds of the length - use of "for"

< Previous | Next >

mousedeer

Member
ITALIAN
An axe with parallel side for two-thirds of the length?

Is FOR correct in this case? (I mean for the most part of the body of the axe)

<<SECOND QUESTION DELETED>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    If I may clarify... are we speaking of an axe you chop wood with? If so, there are two parts: the handle and the head. If not, perhaps you can tell us how "axe" is being used here. Thank you.
     

    mousedeer

    Member
    ITALIAN
    Sorry, I'm talking about a prehistoric axe-head.
    But the problem concerns everything can have parallel side FOR two-thirds of th lenght. I don't if in English I can say (something which extends) 'for two-thirds of the length'.

    Or something which is narrowing at middle lenght, can I say at middle lenght? Is it correct?

    thank you, I hope someone can answer, now I'm desperate :-(
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    Hmm... you have to be parallel to something. A double-bitted axe, for example, has an axe face on two sides. I'm guessing, however, that single-bitted axes were the prehistoric norm. In that case, your sentence is saying that the face (the sharp edge) of the axe is parallel to the small part that the handle fits into. I guess I have a little trouble with this simply because the two lengths (the axe face and the whatever-it's-called where the axe handle fits) are such different lengths. A picture would certainly help, perhaps from Google Images.

    Failing that, are you sure that you can't simply use "straight" rather than "parallel"?

    And to throw more confusion in here, I usually think of "narrow" as coming from two sides, rather than just a single side, like a narrow waist. What about "concave" as a description of the axe head?

    Finally, I have a feeling that your two-thirds is divided up top and bottom. Top third straight, middle third concave, bottom third straight. But this would give you a pretty odd-looking axe head which I doubt even primitive people would design.

    You seem to be pressed for time, but I'm not sure this is an easy question to answer without a photo or drawing.

    Edit: Ok, I went searching for myself and maybe I'm thinking too modern -- where a handle comes up through an opening. And I wasn't thinking stone at all.

    So I found this image. Is that more like what your axe head looks like? Where the concave portion is created so that the top of the handle wraps around it? And the parallel two-thirds you're talking about is the top and bottom of the "blade" and you're not discussing the sharp edge at all? (You'll need to mentally rotate that linked image 90 degrees to the right.)

    Just speculation... you'll need to clarify. Here's a link to Google Images of prehistoric axe heads to help you choose. :)
     
    Last edited:

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    Thanks for that. Now I'm going to suggest that a picture is worth a thousand words here. Are you going to have a drawing to accompany your words or are you just describing it with no visual aids?

    Here's a start:
    The top and bottom edges of the axe head are parallel for two-thirds of their length, widening in the last third to form a broad cutting edge.

    Keep in mind that without an illustration, this may not mean much to many readers.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top