|
|
goodnesses
|
The last one is related to what we call "contrasting" which is related to comparison and not obligatory to comparatives and superlatives.
Which is better to use when describing two things that contrast or are opposing; cat/tiger, mouse/elephant, ocean/sea, river/steam....
Ooops Re-edited
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
goodnesses
|
I prefer to use "not as/so .... as"
In this case
"Brazil is not so large as canada if we �admit � that both are large countries.
Or,
"Canada is not as small as Brazil." if we �believe � that both are small countries.
We can �t say that "canada is larger than Brazil" then immediately that "Brazil is smaller than Canada."
Maybe in one life then in another. I can �t do it during the same course with the same PPs.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
maker1
|
|
@ladybird
I think more than enough comparisons have been made on the matter and whatever I may say goodnesses will teach his/her classes as he/she believes right fortunately he is not sharing classes with me. I do wish you all a pleasant night and a fruitful working day for tomorrow. |
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
Zora
|
You have just succeeded in confusing yourself Goodness... 
Silke was right...
You are just saying the same thing two different ways by saying:
Brazil is smaller than Canada / or / Canada is larger than Brazil...
It means EXACTLY the same thing... honestly it does and I am being serious now.
Canada being bigger than Brazil is a factual thing and we aren �t guessing or estimating - or - "guestimating" (made up word!!) as some like to say!! 
Also we could say it your way, which means the same thing but here you are "guestimating" - looking at a map and saying... "hmmm.. Canada looks a wee bit bigger than Brazil..." and not necessarily basing it on fact.... unless of course you think a couple hundred thousand miles is a "small" difference!! Then you can run with your way of seeing this too BUT the most natural way is:
Brazil is smaller than Canada but
Canada is less populated than Brazil.
Canada is the largest country but Brazil is the most populated of all.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
goodnesses
|
Ok that is your opinion.
I would never use two opposite adjectives to describe/compare the same two things.
small and large are relative. there are countries with certain area that are considered as small (Swizerland, Tunisia, Portugal and many others) others that are considered as large (USA, China, Russian federation, Canada; Algeria and many many others)
For me "Algeria is not smaller than the USA" But it is not as large.
Tunisia is not smaller than Algeria but Algeria is a large country while Tunisia is small, smaller than Portugal.
Just lookn at the map.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
goodnesses
|
|
Yes of course because Algeria is large and the USA is larger.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
wolfy
|
|
Brazil�is�smaller�than�Canada�but Canada�is less populated than�Brazil.
Canada�is the largest country but Brazil�is the most populated of all.
In this example the word "But" is important. �Maybe it sounds more natural to say Canada is bigger than Brazil, BUT the element of suprise is that while it is bigger it has a smaller population. �In fact not only does it sound better using "smaller" I would even emphasis it.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
goodnesses
|
Dear Wolfy!
The ^problem is not the "But" or the element of surprise ????
The question is how can we say "Brazil is smaller than Canada" then "Canada is the largest country" ???
"Canada is less populated than Brazil." and "Brazil is the most populated of all." is ok because we know that the two are very populated.
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
goodnesses
|
|
Weren �t you giving up Silke???
|
23 Mar 2009
|
|
|
Zora
|
|
Or, or... maybe your irritation wasn �t as big as your wish to give up! lol |
23 Mar 2009
|
|
