#1 If it were not for water, we would die.
#2 If there were no water, we would die.
2006-07-18 01:17:02 · 15 answers · asked by Black Dog 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Firstly, it should be said as:
1. If it was not for water, we would die.
2. If there was no water, we would die.
But I think the first one will be better said as: If it was not for the water from (someplace), we would die.
So overall, the second one will be better as it just directly says that without water, we would die.
2006-07-18 03:18:55 · answer #1 · answered by rach 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference is in the object of the sentence. One sentence asserts that there are qualities or properties of water that are needed to sustain life, and the other states that lack of water threatens life. They are very close in meaning, with that small distinction.
2006-07-18 01:21:55 · answer #2 · answered by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a million. may be rephrased as "He has invented innumerable excuses and advised limitless lies." He has done 2 issues. (by using how, many times even as there are 2 acts, we use "and" rather than a comma. If there are 3 or extra, we many times use a comma and "and": He has invented innumerable excuses , advised limitless lies, and been a real jerk. ) 2. Sounds as if there's a connection between both acts. evaluate: A: He has been to Spain, visited his kinfolk. = He has done 2 separate issues. the relationship is uncertain. This appears like an incomplete record of issues that he has done. B: He has been to Spain, vacationing his kinfolk. = He went to Spain for the purpose of vacationing his kinfolk. So, 2. appears like he has invented those excuses _by_ telling the lies.
2016-10-14 22:16:27 · answer #3 · answered by ikeda 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first assumes there is water but if we don't partake, we will die.
The second supposes there is no water. It's interesting to note that if there were no water, we would probably NOT die because we would find another method of hydrating ourselves.
2006-07-18 01:22:46 · answer #4 · answered by Peaches 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In #1 it's stating that water is the ONLY thing that keeps us alive.
2006-07-18 01:21:32 · answer #5 · answered by boz4425 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
#1 : it is a supposition : IF IT WERE not for water (a suggestion)
(then)WE WOULD DIE.
#2 : it is a concrete fact : IF THERE WERE NO water,
(result) WE WOULD DIE.
2006-07-18 01:23:59 · answer #6 · answered by bharat b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the 1st one means, only water can keep us alive. the 2nd one says that we need water along with other things to stay alive.
2006-07-18 01:23:33 · answer #7 · answered by al 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Direct and Indirect phrases
2006-07-18 01:20:01 · answer #8 · answered by kalabalu 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. means there is water
2. assumes the possibility that there is no water
As stated above by Kalabalu "direct and indirect"
2006-07-18 01:23:48 · answer #9 · answered by D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a question from someone who clearly has a great thirst for knowledge.
2006-07-18 01:25:15 · answer #10 · answered by bonzo the tap dancing chimp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋