Is this a grammatically correct statement?

Question

"Unity is not whatever is not as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment."

Answer 1

Sorry, but not really. First of all, the double negatives at the beginning (Unity is not whatever is not...) isn't grammatically correct. It's difficult to say from the context whether you're trying to say what unity is or what it isn't. If it's a list of what unity is, then you shouldn't use any negatives, and if it's a list of what unity is not, then you should use only one negative article, otherwise you're contradicting yourself and making it difficult for the reader to figure you out.

Also, that's far too many adjectives for a the length of the passage. You should try very hard to have no more than three descriptive words in any given sentence. Try to find the best words possible and use those; a thesaurus can help, but make sure that you've looked up the definitions i a dictionary before you use them, otherwise you might use a word that doesn't mean exactly what you want it to mean. If you just can't cut it down, then you can spread the descriptive words out over a few sentences, grouping words together based on shared meaning. You should really avoid this if at all possible though, as it risks boring your readers without adding anything to what you're saying.

Also, the words you chose are somewhat odd for the sentence. Some of those words simply can't be used to describe an abstract concept like unity. Words like "equivalence, sensation, rule, and condition" have specific meanings in physical life, and attributing them to a concept, while sometimes acceptable, is easy to carry out incorrectly. "Uniqueness, limit, influence, intent and fulfilment" could work, but the endings would not be correct for the sort of sentence you seem to be trying to create. For example, if you're trying to say that unity is...(these things) then you would want to say that it's limitless, unique, and fulfilling. The endings are as important as the words themselves; at best the reader is interrupted by the lack of coherence, at worst they can't figure out what's trying to be said. The rest of the words may or may not work; I can't say because the context to determine what you're trying to say isn't clear, so it's difficult to tell.

Regardless, you still did a good job. I think I can tell what you're trying to say, and if you keep at it I'm sure you'll manage to work it out.

Answer 2

actually, in english, two negatives make a positive. so the sentence actually means, 'Unity is whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment."
therefore, the sentence is a bit too hard to understand clearly.
Its like "I didn;t do nothing!", which means 'I did everything!'
so, the statement is gramaticlly correst, yet not easy to understand.

Answer 3

this is the right 1-

"Unity is not part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment."

Answer 4

I don't know what you are trying to say. Unity is many people being together or people agreeing with each other. Unity usually talks about a lot of people trying to accomplish a goal together. Unity does not usually refer to things or sensations or other abstract concepts.

Answer 5

English, though, has unquestionably become the 'Lingua-franca' most of us Indians still continue to think in our mother tongue when speaking English. The problem arises there. The 'Question', in question therefore seems to be a result of this and most of us who are attempting to answer it are trying to comprehend it in our mother tongue.

Use of two negatives need not necessarily make it gramatically incorrect; it may well be a style to put across an abstract entity. However in this particular case the usage of various adjectives has rendered the entire meaning of the word 'Unity', irrelevant, and thus the sentence itself seems incorrect.

Answer 6

i could be the oddball and say that i won't be in a position to actual see something grammatically incorrect with the sentence. you in all probability decide to apply the common recent annoying somewhat of the non-end recent annoying, yet what you have reported actual could make experience, counting on the better context. If, working example, the 1st speaker replace into questioning of lending the 2d speaker his automobile, and the area of the "one place" might not make a distinction to the 2d speaker if he might desire to apply the 1st speaker's automobile, what you have reported is thoroughly the terrific option. at the instant, the 2d speaker's skill to circulate to the single place "is predicated" on the place that one place is, yet that would desire to not be the case interior the destiny. without one among those context immediately surrounding those 2 sentences, in spite of the undeniable fact that, you may decide to apply the present uncomplicated annoying because of the fact no count number what occurs, the 2d speaker's skill to circulate to the placement will continuously rely on the place the placement is, or, a minimum of, continuously will given the prompt context.

Answer 7

I, John Smith, is an Indepent Contractor

Answer 8

"Unity is the whole of equivalence,........"

Your sentece has two negatives in it.
It is hard to read and understand this way.

Answer 9

Man, you really seem to be stuck on the same sentence. This sentence is total gibberish.

Answer 10

Really, it doesn't make much sense. Sorry.