# put into hotels sooner vs put sooner into hotels

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
Hi Guys!

I have the following sentence:
More money would be put into hotels sooner than if there were no lending, the amount owed would quickly grow to multiples of the amount of money in existence.
Does this sentence mean that more money than previously and also sooner will be poot into hotels?
Let say before lending, there were \$10k in 5 months, and after lending, it could be \$15k in 3 months?
Does this the implication of this sentence?
More money would be put sooner into hotels than if there were no lending, the amount owed would quickly grow to multiples of the amount of money in existence.
Does this sentence equal to the previous?
Or, in this case, it emphasizes that more money from existing ones will be put sooner?
For example, \$10k in 5 months \$2k every month. Before
and \$10k in 2.5 months \$4k every month. After
Thanks!

Last edited:
• #### lingobingo

##### Senior Member
The first version is idiomatic, the second is unlikely (in my view), and both are somewhat ambiguous.

More money would be put into hotels sooner
= not only would more money be put into hotels, but this would happen sooner/earlier/more quickly

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
The first version is idiomatic, the second is unlikely (in my view), and both are somewhat ambiguous.

More money would be put into hotels sooner
= not only would more money be put into hotels, but this would happen sooner/earlier/more quickly
Thank you. Because of the ambiguity, Does it equally possible that this would mean the other one as well? That the amount would be the same only in a shorter period?
Does it also possible to interpret this without any further or previous context?

#### lingobingo

##### Senior Member
I don’t think it has anything to do with individual sums of money. It’s a generalisation, meaning more as a greater overall amount or quantity of something.

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
I don’t think it has anything to do with individual sums of money. It’s a generalisation, meaning more as a greater overall amount or quantity of something.
Noted, If I may ask, to what ambiguity were you referring then?

#### lingobingo

##### Senior Member
The ambiguity is whether sooner refers both to there being more money and to its being put in sooner.

#### NorthG

##### Member
This is said by a lender to a person who wants to borrow \$ to build hotels. So the lender is explaining that if the person opens a mortgage on their hotels they will get a larger amount of \$ quicker than they would if they didn’t borrow the \$. I like the flow of your first sentence better than your second sentence. Are you the lender and you are trying to write this sentence correctly?

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
This is said by a lender to a person who wants to borrow \$ to build hotels. So the lender is explaining that if the person opens a mortgage on their hotels they will get a larger amount of \$ quicker than they would if they didn’t borrow the \$. I like the flow of your first sentence better than your second sentence. Are you the lender and you are trying to write this sentence correctly?
No nothing like that. I found it in a book and was wondering about its meaning.
"they will get a larger amount of \$ quicker than they would if they didn’t borrow the \$" this one virtually causes the same question, whether more money overall than without lending or just in a shorter time.

The ambiguity is whether sooner refers both to there being more money and to its being put in sooner.
Ok, so there is a different meaning if sooner refers to both vs. one?
If sooner only refer to being put it means that overall more money be put than before lending. If the sooner refer to both it means it would mean the same amount before lending just put sooner?

I don’t think it has anything to do with individual sums of money. It’s a generalisation, meaning more as a greater overall amount or quantity of something.
Yes, I know. I just added them for better visualization. If sooner reference results only on quicker time that money is put or if the more money is put and in quicker time.

#### MonaWo

##### New Member
I don’t think it has anything to do with individual sums of money. It’s a generalisation, meaning more as a greater overall amount or quantity of something.
Please elaborate on this. I think you didn't understand.
I'm not sure what your comment even means in this relation.
You saw numbers and wrote it?
Numbers serve as an example to see what it would look like on some examples.
P.S generalization always comes from individual cases.

#### lingobingo

##### Senior Member
Presumably you misunderstand that the construction in question is often used as a general comment, which is all I was saying. If you want to explain it in terms of specific figures, feel free to do so.

#### MonaWo

##### New Member
Presumably you misunderstand that the construction in question is often used as a general comment, which is all I was saying. If you want to explain it in terms of specific figures, feel free to do so.

Presumably you're the one who misunderstood the nature of the examples.

Ok, and based on what, you're able to form general comments? From observing individual numbers behavior.

I mean, from a language perspective, your other answers are valid, from logic, you're making confusion here.

Generalization implies the behavior of individual cases.
Even if you want to make a general statement with examples, you always operate on an individual level.

I think OP presented them correctly to cut any ambiguity that sentence has. Materializing an abstract concept(more general one) into a concrete one(individual).
If you're familiar with programming
the statement is a form of class (blue-print)
and the n example is an object (created based on this blueprint).

If you look at it from the perspective of others.
It looks something like this:

OP: describing the problem, giving the example to each one for more clarity.

Him: asking then if the other case(logic described by example) can also apply (asking you if ambiguity is exactly what you are descibing later).

You: ignoring logic, focusing on the example telling that it is not about numbers. Virtually telling: it is not about this number. It is about the general case. (where is the logic here?)

OP is getting completely off the track (don't blame him):
So what do you mean by ambiguity?
You: describing logic.

And here is what is interesting. If op asked you about some examples, you would give him some numbers for better visualization.

In other words, your statement telling that this is about a general statement, not an individual case is just unnecessary, adding only confusion.
Or maybe I really misundestood it, then please explain.

Last edited:

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
Presumably you're the one who misunderstood the nature of the examples.

Ok, and based on what, you're able to form general comments? From observing individual numbers behavior.

I mean, from a language perspective, your other answers are valid, from logic, you're making confusion here.

Generalization implies the behavior of individual cases.
Even if you want to make a general statement with examples, you always operate on an individual level.

I think OP presented them correctly to cut any ambiguity that sentence has. Materializing an abstract concept(more general one) into a concrete one(individual).
If you're familiar with programming
the statement is a form of class (blue-print)
and the n example is an object (created based on this blueprint).

If you look at it from the perspective of others.
It looks something like this:

OP: describing the problem, giving the example to each one for more clarity.

Him: asking then if the other case(logic described by example) can also apply (asking you if ambiguity is exactly what you are descibing later).

You: ignoring logic, focusing on the example telling that it is not about numbers. Virtually telling: it is not about this number. It is about the general case. (where is the logic here?)

OP is getting completely off the track (don't blame him):
So what do you mean by ambiguity?
You: describing logic.

And here is what is interesting. If op asked you about some examples, you would give him some numbers for better visualization.

In other words, your statement telling that this is about a general statement, not an individual case is just unnecessary, adding only confusion.
Or maybe I really misundestood it, then please explain.
Thank you for the additional explanation. I wasn't sure
what it was referring to. Maybe it was some hidden meaning besides obvious that I didn't get.
Those numbers are themselves wrong or what?
Or that it cannot be expressed in numbers?
Basically, I understood it like this: This example has nothing to do with the statement because it doesn't have anything to do with numbers
Thanks

#### Myridon

##### Senior Member
The hotel needs \$10,000 and the hotel makes a profit of \$1000 per week. They can borrow the money and have \$10,000 tomorrow or they can save the profits for 10 weeks and have \$10,000 in ten weeks.

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
The hotel needs \$10,000 and the hotel makes a profit of \$1000 per week. They can borrow the money and have \$10,000 tomorrow or they can save the profits for 10 weeks and have \$10,000 in ten weeks.
Sorry? I don't really understand the nature of your comment.

#### Myridon

##### Senior Member
Sorry? I don't really understand the nature of your comment.
I was trying to give you an example that works. Perhaps neither one of us understands the situation. You haven't really given us enough information to know what money is going out and coming in and for what reasons.

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
I was trying to give you an example that works. Perhaps neither one of us understands the situation. You haven't really given us enough information to know what money is going out and coming in and for what reasons.
Yeah sorry. It was taken from the book that explains the difference between the market with and without lending using monopoly analogy and investing in these hotels.

#### Myridon

##### Senior Member
Yeah sorry. It was taken from the book that explains the difference between the market with and without lending using monopoly analogy and investing in these hotels.
It's about the actual game of Monopoly? I was wondering how hotels were going to use up all the money in existence.

#### Arco Marco

##### Member
It's about the actual game of Monopoly? I was wondering how hotels were going to use up all the money in existence.
Yes, correct. Explaining how the credit cycles work based on this game.

#### MonaWo

##### New Member
Thank you for the additional explanation. I wasn't sure
what it was referring to. Maybe it was some hidden meaning besides obvious that I didn't get.
Those numbers are themselves wrong or what?
Or that it cannot be expressed in numbers?
Basically, I understood it like this: This example has nothing to do with the statement because it doesn't have anything to do with numbers
Thanks
I don’t think it has anything to do with individual sums of money. It’s a generalisation, meaning more as a greater overall amount or quantity of something.

No, it didn't have any hidden meaning or layer that can only be understood by the most intelligent people, if it is what you are asking.

I mean, in a logical approach, it is a good idea to know when to refrain from obvious statements since they only can add confusion.

It is the most basic and unnecessary statement. Something like

Let suppose you are asking what the lion is.

Someone gives you an answer, big wild four-footed cat blablabla.

And you are replying, oh, so it is something like Simba(the character from the king lion movie), basically trying to see if you understand general class definition(how lion looks like), mentioning the instance of this class.

And someone instead of telling you Yes correct, would give you something like: I don't think this definition has anything to do with the individual lion. It's a generalization of what the lion is.

What sense this statement has? None, maybe if there are some indications (there are none, and there wasn't any with your post)

Like for example, you think that the lion can only be Simba. ( I still wouldn’t phrase it as “has nothing to do” though, because it simply not true).

But there is none the same as there was none in your comment and the keyword "example" clearly state that.

These kinds of statements are just fillers serving no purpose.

It is like me looking at the sky, saying to others that it is beautiful and receiving in response: you know it is blue?

It is difficult to say why she wrote this.
Maybe she thought it made her look smarter?
Or maybe she just thought about something and wrote something different it can happen.

I also sometimes wrote something stupid that I'm ashamed of it and can't believe it was me

There are many possibilities.

Even(albeit negligible based on the simplicity of this statement) that her comprehension is at the level that our intellect isn't able to even see.

You must always remember.

Just because someone is able to speak in some language perfectly doesn't mean he has required knowledge to explain it. There are many topics that I couldn't explain in my native language.