3 ms·
> Isn't this correct in English? I, as a non-native English speaker, would write "thrice at perception, dexterity and mind work" (instead of "both at percept
by wolfgke 7y ago
> Isn't this correct in English?
I, as a non-native English speaker, would write
"thrice at perception, dexterity and mind work"
(instead of "both at perception, dexterity and mind work"), but I am not sure whether this is overly formal (it is, in my experience, often the case that when you try to translate how you would express something in German into English, you land at something overly formal, since in German the commonly used language register is more formal than in English).
- wincy 7y agoAn American native speaker would certainly understand and not raise an eyebrow at using “both” in this context, even though technically it means two not three. Using “thrice” is sort of archaic and formal (like you mentioned) and people would maybe make a good natured joke about being “fancy” if you used the word “thrice” often in conversation. Oddly though twice has none of the baggage of thrice, and is used all the time. My four year old knows and uses twice, but doesn’t know what thrice means.
- jmull 7y agoThrice doesn’t really fit the sentiment of the sentence there. It would be best to replace “both” with nothing in that sentence when moving from two to three items. “Both” itself isn’t necessary when dealing with two items (not that it hurts, IMO). It could serve a rhetorical purpose if you particularly wanted to emphasize the equal relationship between the two items. E.g., if one item might normally be perceived as significantly more important than the other, “both” is a way to address the surprise or skepticism the reader may feel seeing them placed together equally.