Is this sentence grammatically correct: “She would make for a convincing Amy.” [on hold]
This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.
The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.
tenses past-tense would mood
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka 2 days ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 3 more comments
This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.
The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.
tenses past-tense would mood
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka 2 days ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
2
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
1
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.
The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.
tenses past-tense would mood
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.
The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.
tenses past-tense would mood
tenses past-tense would mood
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
edited 2 days ago
Jesse Steele
550214
550214
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
asked Jan 7 at 2:06
raghavraghav
192
192
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
raghav is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka 2 days ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka 2 days ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, Let's stop villifying Iran, Chenmunka
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
2
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
1
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
2
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
1
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
3
3
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
2
2
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
1
1
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.
"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.
It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):
That would make for a convincing argument.
or
It would have made for an impactful movie.
Or in politics...
This will make for an effective presidential term.
The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.
As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
add a comment |
This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).
Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.
"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.
It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):
That would make for a convincing argument.
or
It would have made for an impactful movie.
Or in politics...
This will make for an effective presidential term.
The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.
As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
add a comment |
This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.
"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.
It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):
That would make for a convincing argument.
or
It would have made for an impactful movie.
Or in politics...
This will make for an effective presidential term.
The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.
As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
add a comment |
This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.
"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.
It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):
That would make for a convincing argument.
or
It would have made for an impactful movie.
Or in politics...
This will make for an effective presidential term.
The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.
As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.
"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.
It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):
That would make for a convincing argument.
or
It would have made for an impactful movie.
Or in politics...
This will make for an effective presidential term.
The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.
As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
answered 2 days ago
Jesse SteeleJesse Steele
550214
550214
add a comment |
add a comment |
This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).
Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
add a comment |
This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).
Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
add a comment |
This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).
Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).
Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
answered 2 days ago
vectoryvectory
1428
1428
add a comment |
add a comment |
3
Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09
However, it's film, not flim.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15
@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40
2
This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
– vectory
2 days ago
1
Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago