[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Hi.
Could someone correct my English?


What astonished me recently.

A Japanese TV station broadcasted a course in philosophy at Harvard University from last April to June. The title wasJustice with Michael Sandel (a heated class in Harvard). They talked about the right things to do, and this program was very interesting.
However, what I was most astonished about in the lecture were these words from the professor (This was said when they were talking who should enter Harvard. ):
The common good is served, is advanced, if there is a racially and ethnically diverse student body. Everyone benefits.
He said this as if it were common sense. The discussion was on this premise. I was really shocked.
Is this a global standard?
I’m sure that most Japanese people would not understand or agree with this idea.
I don’t know about any great professors, but common Japanese prefer a non-diverse society; so Japan absorbs few immigrants.
Japanese people generally prefer not saying all of what they think, and listeners are supposed to understand what the speakers left unsaid. Many Japanese people aren’t used to saying all the things we need to say. This is possible when people have the same values and cultures.
I know that other countries have many immigrants and I have thought that you just like it. I didn’t imagine someone thought diverse people are to everyone’s benefit.
I think Japanese can’t speak English fluently without overcoming this cultural difference. On the other hand, learners of Japanese language should know Japanese culture is much different than you'd guess.

Thank you.

Very interesting post, Yuri. Most of my revisions were small ones that make the sentences read smoother and focus the reader's thinking while reading them.

Other revisions:

1. "They talked what the right things to do are"

was changed to

"They talked about the right things to do"

The verb "talked" modifies the prepositional phrase in a more direct way. This means "are" can be removed and the sentence still retains the central concept.

2. "However, what I was most astonished in the lecture was the professor’s this words"

was changed to

"However, what I was most astonished about in the lecture were these words from the professor"

"About" was added for the same reason as the previous revision (adding directness), and "was" became "were" because the action being described occured in the past.

3."He said this as if this was common sense. On this premise, they were discussing."

was changed to

"He said this as if it were common sense. The discussion was on this premise."

"Were" is used as the observation made by the professor occured in the past. This revision and the previous one using "were" are more of a formal way of speaking that is grammatically correct. Most English speaking individuals use "was" and "were" interchangeably depending on preference.

The sentence after it was rearranged to read smoother. "Was" is not serving the same function as previous sentences, instead it is a state of being connecting the subject (discussion) to the subject modifier (on this premise).

4. "I didn’t imagine someone thinks diverse people are everyone’s benefit."

was changed to

"I didn’t imagine someone thought diverse people are to everyone’s benefit."

"Thought" read smoother and more correct as it describes an action in the past. "To" was added to complete what is an expression in English that describes a state of being applied to an abstract concept (everyone's benefit).

Hope these revisions are of some use, Yuri.