HL #4945 You Have Choices to Make
Dear Gloria,
in http://www.heavenletters.org/in-life-you-have-choices-to-make.html
parag. 9
"Ah, now, there can be something that is false to yourself. Know when it is, and don’t be false to yourself. There is a line beyond which you cannot go. You don’t have to break the law. Even under duress, you don’t have to. You don’t have to prove anything. Fighting everything does not you a fighter make. It might make you a squabbler."
I am not clear in the precise meaning of "something false to yourself" as related to "don't be false to yourself". The preposition "to" in "false to yourself" is confusing me a bit.
last parag.
"We are not talking about winning a hand, beloveds, nor are We talking about playing a losing hand. Let Us be talking about being equitable in life, as if are on a seesaw, and it is the same really whether you are up or down. What difference does it make? " Is it okay or is "we" missing" and is it equivalent to "as if we were on a seesaw". In French we cannot use the present with "as if" but I guess you can in English.
Thanks
text question
Hello, Gloria called me in on this as I enjoy grammar! Regarding the first question, "something that can be false to yourself" -- it sounds fine to my ears. "Something" could refer to an action, such as telling a lie or pretending to be other than you really are, or as in the example in the text, breaking a law. The preposition "to" is what fits here.
Regarding "as if are on a seesaw," I agree with you on both counts. The pronoun "we" must be inserted and "were" is better than "are", because it is in the subjunctive case which is, strictly speaking, called for following "as if". So "as if we were on a seesaw" sounds correct to me. I must add that English is fast losing many of its subtler nuances, so many readers won't notice some of the things that catch your attention and mine.
My pet peeve is failing to make the verb agree with the antecedent of "who" in who clauses. As in "It is I who AM (correct) telling you this" (not I who is),
or "It is you who ARE (correct) editing these texts (not you who is).
Someone else will have to point out to me my blind spots, of which I am sure there are many!
With warm regards and gratitude for your contribution to Heavenletters
Margaret
How beautiful your response,
How beautiful your response, dear Margaret! I don't think there is a blind spot that can get past you!
Your pet peeve is something I often break in my effort to get it right!
Please continue giving us feedback! It is invaluable.
About the propriety of the past in the conjunctive tense, you are unquestionably correct.
Naturally, as Normand translates this, he will do it as it is done in the French language.
In English, it may be that God prefers the present tense as often as possible!
Merci bien!
Margaret, Normand is a French translator. Wasn't your major French?
Many of the questions posted here regarding English usage are from translators. There are also others who catch my typos for which I am very grateful. You will notice that most of these questions regarding Heavenletters are not yet posted. The questioners do give a link to the Heavenletter. Find out if that link works for you. What I don't know is if you get access. I know that mostly I have to see the complete Heavenletter to get a sense of the one sentence that seems to need something. Please let me know here, if you please.
Thank you, Gloria
Does my posting here mean that I have access to this page?
Definitely, you have access
Definitely, you have access to this page. The question is whether you have access to this page where you can view the Heavenletter itself: On the right margin, do you a heading in gold called Admin Tools? I'm guessing that that doesn't show on what you see.
Normand gave a link to the Heavenletter Listing page. When you press that link that Normand gave, I am thinking, hoping, desiring that it does come up for you.
Agreed that there is a
Agreed that there is a missing word on the seesaw, and I believe the choices are limited to "we" and "you", either of which will fit. My feeling is that "you" was intended. If you go with "we", it gives the picture of you and God on a seesaw, something that God is quite capable of doing, but I would much rather let God be the One definitely creating that picture. In that it is open, I would choose not to put God on the other end out of cautionary respect. If I were Gloria I would ask God directly which he had intended, but as it happens I am neither Gloria nor God.
If you do go with "we", local custom and tradition would change it to the honorific "We", at least in English as published. That would put God on the other end of the seesaw without question, and would make me more than a little nervous without a direct Word.