My German hasn't reached such a satisfactorily level that..

slovac

Senior Member
Please I read that "My German hasn't reached such a satisfactorily level that I can communicate in the language
" is grammartically correct. I would like to ask if it is possible to use this sentence in British English.
Thank for answering.
 
  • paieye

    Senior Member
    English - British
    You could use the sentence, but it is clumsy English. A better sentence would 'My German has not reached a level at which I can communicate in the language.'
     

    EStjarn

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    ... I don't understand why there is IN THE LANGUAGE. Isn't it redundant?
    You are thus proposing:

    My German has not reached a level at which I can communicate.


    To me something is missing there. For example, one might ask: Communicate with whom? It seems 'communicate' has a sufficiently imprecise meaning that you need to specify it. By adding 'in the language' or 'in it' you tie up the sentence's loose end.
     
    Last edited:

    Biffo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    You mentioned grammar. You have used 'satisfactorily' (adverb) where you should have used 'satisfactory' (adjective).
     

    Biffo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    You are, thus, proposing:

    My German has not reached a level at which I can communicate.


    To me something is missing there. For example, one might ask: Communicate with whom? It seems 'communicate' has a sufficiently unprecise meaning that you need to specify it. By adding 'in the language' or 'in it' you tie up the sentence's loose end.
    I agree that something is lacking - I don't know why.

    My German has not reached a level at which I can communicate with people

    Seems better to me but I'm not certain why. 'with people' seems obvious and yet necessary.
     

    radosna

    Senior Member
    English- USA
    Ooooh! I have another proposal:

    "My German has not yet reached a level at which I can communicate satisfactorily."
     

    slovac

    Senior Member
    Could I ask please? I have an idea. Can I express this problem as follows?
    My German has not reached such a satisfactorily level for me to communicate with people in it.
    Or don't you have any other suggestions with FOR?
    Thank you.
     

    sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Could I ask please? I have an idea. Can I express this problem as follows?
    My German has not reached such a satisfactorily level for me to communicate with people in it.
    Or don't you have any other suggestions with FOR?
    Thank you.
    Is there some reason you need to specify "with people?"

    Is there some other sort of organism you were planning on communicating with?
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    My German has not reached a level at which I can communicate with people .
    "My German has not yet reached a level at which I can communicate satisfactorily."
    I communicate quite satisfactorily with both people and dogs and the level of my German is practically zero. That's why "in German" is helpful for making the meaning of the sentence perfectly clear.
     

    radosna

    Senior Member
    English- USA
    to sdgraham: Without people that sentence looks quite naked. Usage of FOR was important to me.
    to Miss Julie: It was advice of one person from here. Probably it was typo, but I didn't dare to change it.
    Thanks for answers.
    Slovac,

    Firstly, I agree with sdgraham that specifying "with people" is unnecessary. Myridon has written of an unusual circumstance in which communication with dogs has been included as a possibility, but this is not the norm. In context, no one would assume you were talking about communicating with someone or something other than people. Conversely, if one intended to refer to communication with dogs, aliens, or anything other than people, then that would need to be specified. Otherwise, the safe assumption is that you're talking about communication with people. To specify it seems superfluous and even awkward. It makes me, as a reader/listener question why the writer/speaker would need to include that.

    Secondly, as for the use of the word satisfactorily or satisfactory, as Miss Julie has pointed out, satisfactorily is an adverb which modifies a very -- in this case, "communicate". Satisfactory is an adjective. It modifies a noun (i.e. "level"). So whether you choose satisfactorily or satisfactory depends entirely upon which word you are modifying. If you want to modify "level" with satisfactory, that's fine. But I also think that it is even more important to modify the word "communicate" because we are always communicating something. Whether or not that communication is accurate, sufficient, satisfactory, clear, unclear, inadequate, etc. is the factor which needs to be elaborated upon.

    Thirdly, I don't understand why you aren't satisfied (hee hee) with the options we have already proposed. What does it lack, in your opinion?

    Fourthly, why is it so important to you to use the word "for"? If you absolutely must fit the word "for" in the sentence, then I will propose the following. But beware -- I've modified your sentence quite a bit!
    "My German has not yet reached a level sufficient for satisfactory communication."

    Well, hopefully, this thread will end with a satisfactory answer for your OP. :)

    All the best,
    radosna

    (P.S. I hope none of this was received as an attack. It was not intended as such.)
     

    sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    to sdgraham: Without people that sentence looks quite naked.
    To this educated native speaker and retired senior editor for the world's largest news-gathering organization, it looks wordy and redundant.

    Since we have no language police, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion .... but if you're wedded to it, why ask here?
     

    radosna

    Senior Member
    English- USA
    I am in agreement with sdgraham & I am certainly not going to argue with his credentials!

    As the French say, "Chapeau, Monsieur!". Hats off to you, Sir Sdgraham!
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top