Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

I've been wondering if it would look strange if I didn't include both "pairs" of this idiom, e.g.:

In recent times a significant increase of popularity of teaching English as a foreign language in kindergartens is observed. However, it may be surrounded by many doubts, the main reasons being the great demand for this type of activities from parents, and at the same time the lack of specific, clear guidelines governing the teaching of English, which could be of help to those responsible for introduction of such classes into kindergartens.

I know it's possible (and indeed used) the other way around but I am not sure in this case.

share|improve this question
4  
Sorry @JStrange, I was going to try a rewrite of your sentence but I am not clear on its meaning either. I seem to see a place for "on the other hand", where you say "at the same time" - but did not feel confident enough in my understanding of your intent to do the rewrite. – Kristina Lopez Nov 29 '12 at 18:05
1  
@KristinaLopez +1 I think you understood the intention correctly. "At the same time" should be replaced with "on the other hand". But the sentence following the idiom (or the whole passage) needs work. – Chris Nov 29 '12 at 18:54
1  
The Brony (My Little Pony) fandom goes in the opposite direction with that, with a fondness for quadruple comparisons. "...And on the fourth hoof..." – SF. Nov 29 '12 at 18:55
Edited for context. – JStrange Nov 29 '12 at 20:03
1  
Ehm, is it me or does your sentence now not have "on the one hand" at all? – Mr Lister Nov 29 '12 at 20:44
show 5 more comments

closed as not a real question by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, tchrist, Mitch, Robusto Dec 1 '12 at 21:06

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote

There’s no point at all in writing on the one hand if you aren’t going to balance it with on the other hand. You might just as well leave it out. Quite apart from that, the sentence is not at all clear. In fact, it’s not even a sentence as commonly understood, because it lacks a finite verb in the main clause.

share|improve this answer
Serves me right for not including the whole context! It's added now. – JStrange Nov 29 '12 at 19:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.