3 ms·
There's a grammatical error, I think, that slightly changes the meaning of part of the article. Second, the Brazilian way of farming is more likely to do good
by CWuestefeld 16y ago
There's a grammatical error, I think, that slightly changes the meaning of part of the article.
Second, the Brazilian way of farming is more likely to do good in the poorest countries of Africa and Asia.
I think that the writer actually means "do well" where he says it will "do good". My correction says that there's a good chance that it will be successful elsewhere -- which would also imply his wording, that it would deliver positive results in those regions.
- maw 16y agoIn the sentence, "good" is a noun. You can say "deliver ..." or "achieve positive results", but why use the longer latinate words? It just makes you look like you're trying to look smarter than you are.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoNo, these are not just different ways of skinning the same cat, the meaning is quite different. The word "good" is a noun, indicating what will be done. The word "well" is an adverb, and describes how something will be done. In a contrived example, a sentence like "the raping and pillaging invaders did well" is grammatically and semantically correct (they achieved their goal by getting lots of gold, etc.). A similar sentence "the raping and pillaging invaders did good" is grammatically correct, but the semantics are probably not what you want (they didn't do good, they did evil).
- ramchip 16y agoI think you're technically right about the difference between the two, but I'm quite sure the author did mean "do good"... more food would obviously be a good thing for Africa.