David Mendoza -- Borders That Go Unseen (paper 2 rewrite) I think you have something interesting to say here, but I am afraid that the mechanical aspects of writing clear and grammatically correct sentences are still really getting in your way and making it hard for you to get your points across. I'm going to go through this line by line to show you the kinds of things you need to work on. (My comments are indicated by the <= symbols pointing to the places in your text that are generating the comments.) Please take some time and go through this carefully. I'm also happy to talk through what I was saying in office hours if you would like. Herodotus throughout this passage talks about the Egyptian’s <= this should be Egyptians' (plural) customs. Within Book 2 sections 35-37, there is a border that is not as noticeable. <= Not as noticeable as what? You have not yet introduced the "obvious" border between Egyptian customs and everyone else's customs that Herodotus sets up with the "completely opposite" idea. You should lay that out first. This is a border where we are unable to understand Herodotus’s view. <= Not clear, since you haven't said what the other border is. And how is not being able to understand Herodotus a border? There must be something "in the way" to do that and you explain it later. However, what you mean is not clear because you are introducing this idea without the preparation it requires. As a result of the translation from Greek to English. <= Not a complete sentence. And if you want to use this idea that translation can obscure meaning, you need to explain it better. This should be worked into the previous sentence something like this: "Because of the fact that his work has been translated from Greek into English, there is a border between Herodotus and us that makes it difficult for us to understand what he meant at times." In another passage within the same section, a border of divisions exists between the customs of Egyptians and the customs outside of Egypt from the view of Herodotus. <= What other passage?? Be more specific if you want to say this. By noting these differences, we divide these two customs, <= What two customs?? thus eventually leading to conflicts and arguments with how one should carry their life. <= What does this mean? Do you mean "arguments about how one should live one's life"? The border between customs is notable within this section. <= OK, but this doesn't really say much. When Herodotus conveys how the Egyptians carry out their daily lives, he informs us how <= better: "that" “other people isolate their animals from contact with their daily civilized life, but the Egyptians live together with their animals”(Book 2, Chapter 36, Section 2, page 133). <= I don't understand the choice of this particular citation. Why is that more important than some of the other differences that Herodotus is describing? Explain, or find a more obviously relevant citation. What Herodotus is doing is creating a division between customs. <= OK He divides the Egyptian’s <= not possessive -- this should just be plural: Egyptians from other people. He informs us how the Egyptians do one thing while others do the exact opposite. <= You need to do this earlier (in the opening paragraph) to set up the idea that, besides the "obvious" border here, there's also *another* border between Herodotus and us that makes it hard for us to understand what he is trying to say. This difference creates a boundary between the Egyptians and all others who do the exact opposite. He places them in a category. Although this may seem harmless at first, history has shown that differences can lead to conflicts. Although this may seem frivolous, it can cause problems with how people live their lives. <= OK Other borders that are <= don't need "that are" here within Herodotus’s sections are borders where his view of the Egyptians are <= should be "is" subject is view, which is singular lost because of a translation from Greek to English. For example, when Herodotus mentions “they are the most exceedingly pious with customs” (Book 2, Chapter 37, Section 2, page 134). <= another sentence fragment (not a complete sentence with a subject and a verb) What this means is that they have an extreme religious devotion. Someone might have interpreted this section. <= Interpreted it how?? What are you trying to say? What this creates is a negative idea of the Egyptians. <= I think you are trying to say that it could *conceivably* do that (as it did for you originally). Don't state this so directly. The reason why this is so negative is because others may see this <= What does each "this" refer to? Does the last one mean "them" (referring to the Egyptians)? as a group of lunatics; simply because they have these extreme customs. <= semicolon is incorrect as punctuation here When <= not needed; just start with "In reality, Herodotus, ... " in reality, Herodotus is not conveying such a message but <= not needed according to the original text of Herodotus’s encounters written in Greek translated by Professor Little. <= You don't really need to include that What Herodotus is actually saying are <= should be "is" giving praises <= I think you mean something like "Herodotus is actually praising the Egyptians and saying how extraordinary their customs are." and saying how extraordinary their customs are. So in the end, something is being lost. A border between us and attempting to understand Herodotus is being created. <= It seems to me that this idea is an interesting one, but the border is not really between us and "attempting to understand Herodotus." It's between us and Herodotus, or between us and the meaning that Herodotus wanted to convey through his writing. This is presented <= not the right word to get across what you mean. I think you want something like "introduced" when certain words are used such as “exceedingly pious.” <= better: "... when certain words such as 'exceedingly pious' are used." We lose the true meaning of what the original message said. <= better: "we lose the true meaning of the original message." “Women urinate standing up” and “men sitting down”(Book 2, Chapter 35, Section 4, page 133). <= That comes "out of the blue." There's no connection being made with what you said before. The problem with acquiring such information <= What problem is that? brings up the question, how did he obtain this information? <= I think you mean something like "Unlikely statements like this bring up the question, ... " Herodotus has been known to not be trusted with his sources. <= ?? What does that mean? Don't you mean it is known that what he says is not always accurate? They <= The sources?? have been proven to be off, <= do you mean "incorrect"? And a more substantive question is: Were Herodotus' sources incorrect, or was he himself incorrect, for instance misremembering things he heard from people who were telling him good information? I'm not saying you have to answer that question, by the way, I'm just trying to show you that there's a serious issue about how to interpret the ways information makes it into a historical text. however the mummification process that Herodotus describes has been proven to be quite accurate. <= OK, but you want to make it clearer that the quality of Herodotus' information is variable. Sometimes it is nonsense; other times it is quite accurate. However, that does not mean everything he tells us on his voyage <= what voyage? to be accurate. Therefore, we must not trust his view on the voyage because we do not have a clear answer that he was there. <= You seem to be getting into the question of whether Herodotus actually made the trip to Egypt that he claimed to have made. Without other scholarly sources to go on, that's a difficult and controversial point to get into. Also, what you say is not very clear. How shall we live with the borders of division between customs of different regions <= need a period! How shall we live with the view’s <= no apostrophe of an individual lost. <= What does that mean?? As of the result of the translation not being the same the original text. <= Another sentence fragment (incomplete sentence) Is it possible to surpass these borders? <= OK These borders are possible to surpass <= "possible to surpass" doesn't work; "can be surpassed" would however <= don't need this only if we can live together with each other’s differences. Also, going to the roots of where these texts come from and finding the translations for ourselves, so that we can avoid these views or arguments being lost. <= This is also a sentence fragment. You could say, "We also need to go to the roots of where these texts come from and find ... " Content: B Mechanics: C+