- We play tennis at the same level.
- We are on the same level in tennis.
Please correct the above.
Thanks.
I think ‘level of performance/competence/confidence/hope’ will make it better.
- We play tennis at the same level.
- We are at the same level in tennis.
- you don’t need to elongate the sentence by adding anything more.
At what kind of level can be a question a person of ordinary prudence may ask. Communication needs to be as clear as possible.
A “person of ordinary prudence” would not ask such a question. They would appreciate that we are speaking about the level of play unless the context indicated otherwise. There is simply no need to extend the original and suggesting that one might need to do so is removing the ‘natural English’ form of the original.
It all depends on how one looks at it from one’s own cultural background. Usually, a sentence (or even a small passage) should be capable of being completely comprehended at the first reading. (I hope what is quoted applies to you as well)
Back to the usual old excuse, I see.
You see I’d use the sentence as I suggested so as to make any ordinary (prudent or imprudent) listener understand the meaning at a single go. I don’t like the reader feeling tired or fumbling for any inference.
They wouldn’t, and this insistence that it means more than it does is not worthy of any more time.
Allifathima, the sentences in message #3 are standard in English first-language use.
Fathima will realize that there is nothing wrong with trying to use a sentence as comprehensively and comprehensibly as possible.
Mine was far more comprehensive than your suggestion, and equally comprehensible.
Not comprehensive. It looks as though the sun still does not set there! Well, have a nice time. Good night!
A reply that is thoroughly incomprehensible, but there you are.
Good morning! Yes, in order to comprehend it you need to be at the same high level as mine. I’ll give you a clue; it is related to history and you!
Have you ever heard the expression, “When you are in a hole, stop digging”?
Yes. How about this - Stop being a square peg in a round hole?
That would be an appropriate one for you too.
I didn’t mean it applied to you. Anyhow you have accepted it as highlighted by the word you could have omitted. Well, our conversation makes no useful points. LUSH!
You appear to have misread my response. which indicates that this saying would be appropriate for you along with the last saying, but no matter. The thread degenerated once you made cryptic nonsensical comments for which you had no explanation.