Hi. Please, could you point out mistakes in this briefing of my article?

[Heresson]

Thank you.
I think I may be overusing "the".

The paper deals with the problem of the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) which were taken by the Byzantine Empire from the Arabs in the Xth and XIth centuries. All of them were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the VIIth century, and the question presented by this paper is if the Byzantines regarded these conquests as recapture and liberation, if the history of these lands could have been one of the reasons encouraging Byzantine expansion in this region. The answer appears to be negative. Byzantine sources only mention previous Byzantine possession of a land or a city if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture by the imperial forces. There are not many serious indications that the fact that Cilicia and Syria belonged to Byzantine Empire before Arab conquests played a role in the Byzantine politics of the X-XI centuries.

[Lorizael]

Not enough frogs, clearly.

[Al B. Sure!]

I've seen worse from native speakers but I'm going to rewrite it, although I am not sure if I completely understand what you're trying to say. Keep that limitation in mind since I obviously have not read the article and I'm not sure what a 'briefing' is in this context. If you'd like, I can break down your original version and everything wrong with it. Here's my rewrite, anyway (note, I really hate self-referential stuff like 'the paper' but I'm keeping it for the tone).


The paper discusses the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands taken from the Arabs in the Xth and XIth centuries. These lands, such as Cilicia and northern Syria, were Byzantine possessions prior to the VIIth century Arab conquests. This paper explores if the Byzantines regarded these conquests as liberations and if this attitude towards lost lands encouraged the Byzantine expansion. Byzantine sources, however, only mention previous possession of a land if it were lost immediately prior to its recapture. There are few indications that the prior history of Cilicia and Syria played any role in Byzantine politics of the X-XI centuries.

[Elok]

Here you go--at least, this is how I would phrase things. There may be some errors, since I'm not totally sure what you meant in some spots. I've never seen roman numerals used to designate "Xth" and such (embarrassingly, I've actually forgotten what you call such constructions--ordinals?), but perhaps that's a scholarly convention I'm simply not familiar with. Some of the changes are purely stylistic, rather than grammatical. For example, the "and thus" I added for clarity's sake to show the chain of reasoning. But I could have misinterpreted you.

The paper deals with the matter of Byzantine attitudes towards lands (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) which were taken by the Empire from the Arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries. All of them were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the eighth century; the question presented by this paper is whether the Byzantines regarded these conquests as recapture and liberation, and thus if the history of these lands could have been one factor encouraging Byzantine expansion in the region. The answer appears to be negative. Byzantine sources only mention previous possession of a land or a city if it was lost immediately prior to its recapture by Imperial forces. There are not many serious indications that Byzantine ownership of Cilicia and Syria before the Arab conquests played a role in Byzantine politics of the tenth and eleventh centuries.

[ZEE]

wow this sure sounds like effort.

[Al B. Sure!]

The paper deals with the problem (deals with the problem? Do you have a word count requirement? Is there actually a 'problem' here? Discusses, Explores, etc. are concise alternatives) of the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands (such as Cilicia and northern Syria) (first, parentheses means you don't have to say, 'such as'; it is implied; second, while it may seem natural to have the names of the land follow the word lands, it has a disjointed effect so I would prefer to put it at the end, or better yet, work it into the context of the sentence, as I did, rather than as a parenthetical aside) of which were taken by ('Of which were taken by'? Jesus. Just say 'taken by'. Why the 'of which'? It's completely unnecessary.) the Byzantine Empire from the Arabs in the Xth and XIth centuries. All of them (All of what? Yes, I understand you're talking about the lands but you have a bunch of other nouns in the previous sentence that could cause confusion. Why would you not just say 'These lands'?) were Byzantine possessions prior to the great Arabic conquests of the VIIth century, and the question presented by this paper is if the Byzantines regarded these conquests as recapture and liberation, if the history of these lands could have been one of the reasons encouraging Byzantine expansion in this region ( That's a borderline run-on sentence and convoluted. See my version for an alternative). The answer appears to be negative. ( I don't see the need for this sentence and 'answer appears to be negative' not only belies a lack of conviction by the author but also sounds odd with the usage of the word negative.) Byzantine sources only mention previous Byzantine possession of a land or a city if it was ( if it were, not if it was; subjunctive conjugation) lost immediately prior to its recapture by the imperial forces. There are not many serious indications that the fact that Cilicia and Syria belonged to Byzantine Empire before Arab conquests played a role in the Byzantine politics of the X-XI centuries. ( Needlessly long sentence that meanders through clauses. See my alternative)

[ZEE]

wow this sure sounds like effort.

of course, AAHZ HAS been to know to be "persuaded" to do things in trade.

[Al B. Sure!]

Elok, it's a European convention to use roman numerals for centuries. You see it a lot in history books of European authorship.

[Heresson]

Al B Sure, Elok, thank you both for your help.

[Elok]

Sure thing.

[Al B. Sure!]

Al B Sure, Elok, thank you both for your help.

I realize I may have been a little harsh in my 'teacher edits' but I hope that those will help you improve your English writing. Do you understand those issues or do you have questions?

[Elok]

Al, where did you learn about that use of the subjunctive? I never heard of using the subjunctive to refer to a real past action, and a quick skim of the relevant Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive) confirms that it's limited to discussion of hypotheticals (e.g. "if the town were to be captured tomorrow," now largely replaced by conditionals in daily use) and with/after that ("the general demanded that the town surrender"). I might replace that particular use with the passive past perfect ("a city, if it had been conquered"), but the sentence works okay even as-is. Not trying to start a grammatical cat-fight or anything, I just want to know what rule you're following.

[DaShi]

This paper has ninety-nine problems but the attitude of the Byzantines towards the lands of Cilicia and northern Syria ain't one of them.

This is as far as I've gotten. Alpert, you take the rest.