# Overlapping with this distinction    additional language



## Baltic Sea

Witam wszystkich serdecznie!

*Overlapping with this distinction is that between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language.
*
Czy moje zrozumienie jest właściwe? Szczególnie chodzi mi o słówko "that".

Z tym rozróżnieniem pokrywa się rozróżnienie między jego użyciem jako języka pierwszego (rodzimego), głównego języka użytkownika, a języka dodatkowego.

Termin ten pochodzi A Student's Grammar of The English Language autorstwa Sidney Greenbaum i Randolph Quirk.
Tytuł: The English Language, podtytuł: The use of English, paragraf 1.1, zdanie 3, o którym mowa:
*Overlapping with this distinction is that between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language.*

Dziękuję.​


----------



## Szkot

Yes, you are right, 'that' refers to a second distinction overlapping with the first.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Thank you. I have no right to call into question the example under discussion, but shouldn't it be written *Overlapping this distinction* rather than *Overlapping with this distinction*?


----------



## Baltic Sea

I was wrong. I stand corrected. My conclusion is as follows: to physically overlap something, to (virtually) overlap *with* something. I may be wrong.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/overlap_1?q=overlapping


----------



## dreamlike

Baltic, you could say that 'The two distinctions overlap' and then you could go on to say 'with each other', which could be seen as reduntant. 

In the sentence as it stands, though, 'overlapping *with* this distinction' is good style. I wouldn't leave out the 'with'. I can't point to the exact reason, but it would sound odd.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Thank you, Dreamlike. Could someone else explain to me when to use overlap something and when overlap *with* something?


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Baltic. In which chapter did you find the sentence -- what is the exact name of that chapter. Is it a part of the grammar for English students or the introduction to the book. Is there any sentence before or after, or is it rather a totally separate sentence that is supposed to illustrate something? Is it a title? Is does not look like a complete sentence.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Chapter 1, title: The English Language, subtitle: The use of English, paragraph 1.1, sentence 3 in question:


----------



## 涼宮

Baltic Sea said:


> Thank you, Dreamlike. Could someone else explain to me when to use overlap something and when overlap *with* something?



It seems to me that overlap takes 'with' if it has an object, otherwise overlap uses nothing, as in: their duties overlap.


----------



## dreamlike

涼宮 said:


> It seems to me that overlap takes 'with' if it has an object, otherwise overlap uses nothing, as in: their duties overlap.


It does not exactly work that way. You could well write 'with each other' in your sentence.


----------



## 涼宮

dreamlike said:


> It does not exactly work that way. You could well write 'with each other' in your sentence.



But I've seen more overlap each other at the end of sentences. Or prhaps, in the end, it doesn't even matter and both have the same meaning.


----------



## dreamlike

涼宮 said:


> But I've seen more overlap each other at the end of sentences. Or prhaps, in the end, it doesn't even matter and both have the same meaning.


Could you please restate the first sentence? I have a hard time understanding it.  Other than that, I agree, they mean the same thing.


----------



## 涼宮

I meant that I've seen more ''overlap each other'' being used at the end of sentences, no with.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Baltic Sea said:


> *Overlapping with this distinction is that between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language.
> *​



Muszę powiedzieć, że czegoś mi w tym zdaniu brakuje, i proponowane tłumaczenia wychodzą w moim pojęciu poza to co wyrażono w zdaniu. Między innymi niejasnym jest dla mnie znaczenie wyrażenia „its use” w tym zdaniu: „the use of what?”. 
Czy ktoś podjąłby się próby przeformułowania tego zdania tak aby zaczynało się od podmiotu i miało wyraźnie zaznaczone orzeczenie?


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, absolutely. In my opinion it is not a complete sentence -- maybe something more like a title, or a part of something. A part is missing, otherwise. Also, when you say _these things -- theories, or anything else, overlap_ - you don't need _with each other_. It is redundant, in my opinion.


----------



## Szkot

The sentence is complete, albeit lacking elegance and clarity.  Baltic's translation is fine.  You might rephrase the English sentence as:

There are two overlapping distinctions: 'this distinction' (just mentioned in the text, I assume) and a second distinction (referred to as that). The second distinction is between its (presumably a language under discussion in the text) use as a first and as an additional language.


----------



## LilianaB

What does this sentence mean exactly, Szkot, in your opinion? Could you kindly divide into all the syntactic parts and decipher it exact meaning for me, if you don't mind -- in English, so it can perhaps be properly translated into Polish.


----------



## Szkot

Już powiedziałem, że Baltic dobrze przetłumaczył zdanie na polski.   Może jego wersja bedzie Ci pomagać w rozumeniu angielskiego.  Inaczej forum angielski chętnie pomaga. Nie ja.


----------



## LilianaB

I am sorry, but I don't understand the sentence in any language.


----------



## Thomas1

Ben Jamin said:


> Muszę powiedzieć, że czegoś mi w tym zdaniu brakuje, i proponowane tłumaczenia wychodzą w moim pojęciu poza to co wyrażono w zdaniu. Między innymi niejasnym jest dla mnie znaczenie wyrażenia „its use” w tym zdaniu: „the use of what?”.
> Czy ktoś podjąłby się próby przeformułowania tego zdania tak aby zaczynało się od podmiotu i miało wyraźnie zaznaczone orzeczenie?


Zdanie może nie brzmieć najlepiej, bo zostało wyjęte z kontekstu (o czym Baltic napisał w pierwszym poście). Z tego powodu trudno jest je przeformułować tak, aby zawierało szyk kanoniczny (jest w nim za dużo zaimków deiktycznych). Poza tym autor zastosował tu inwersję, aby nadać większy wydźwięk przekazywanej treści.


> *Overlapping with this distinction is that between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language.*


Można by np. zrobić coś takiego:_With this distinction is overlapping the distinction between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language.
_​Po paru zmianach zdanie można by zapisać tak:_The other distinction between its use as a first language, the primary language of the speaker, and as an additional language is overlapping with the previous distinction.
_​
Przypuszczam, że “its use” odnosi się tutaj do języka, najpewniej do angielskiego. Co do pierwszego rozróżnienia, to zostało wcześniej wymienione w tekście, którego nie mamy, a niestety od autora wątku chyba się już tego nie dowiemy.


----------



## LilianaB

To summarize it -- it is total _gibberish_. I posted it in the English Only Forum -- you may have  a look.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Szkot said:


> The sentence is complete, albeit lacking elegance and clarity.  Baltic's translation is fine.  You might rephrase the English sentence as:
> 
> There are two overlapping distinctions: 'this distinction' (just mentioned in the text, I assume) and a second distinction (referred to as that). The second distinction is between its (presumably a language under discussion in the text) use as a first and as an additional language.


You have guessed much of the stuff that is NOT in the sentence.


----------

