in order to industrialise and normalise a country

  • VicNicSor

    Surely the definite article should be used..
    Even then the sentence would look odd (wouldn't it?), because the implication would be that Vietnam wants to industrialise and normalise some other country. Then 'Vietnam' would have to be replaced:
    ... in order to industrialise and normalise the country, we/the Vietnamese need to speak English.
    ... in order to industrialise and normalise itself, Vietnam needs to speak English.


    Senior Member
    English - US
    The sentence is a direct quote from one of the author's sources, a Vietnamese economist named Le Dang Doanh. I'm guessing that he's not a native speaker of English.


    Senior Member
    Ukrainian & Russian
    So, is it common practice not to correct non-native speakers (and not to mention that they were not corrected via '[sic]' at least) in writing for the sake of clarity and readability?

    Last edited:


    Senior Member
    English - England
    Just as a general point, there's not much point correcting someone in what has already been published if what has been written is comprehensible and has roughly the intended meaning - unless you are being paid to proofread or know the person appreciates correction.

    That said, the BBC should have corrected the minor error in the report as it subtracts from the speaker's valid point.


    Signal Modulation
    English - Scotland
    It is not common to leave a quotation, which this is, uncorrected. Occasionally the editor will include a modification to aid clarity, and this will be marked with square brackets [correction]. Factual mistakes are also usually left, although they are sometimes marked with the Latin word "sic" : Paul said "Yesterday I met Barrack Osama (sic)". In English if you use quotation marks it is presumed that you are giving a verbatim account of something which was said. If it is too hard to understand what the person meant the reporter will paraphrase it instead of using a quotation.