Grammar people help :)

[rsutoratosu]

"We’d like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers, understanding its past, present, development and the benefit of integral tourism."

Would you change it to ?

We would like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers. Understanding its past, present, development and the benefit of integral tourism.

ie not use We'd and would that be consider run on sentence ?

Thanks

 

[Crono]

We would like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers, understanding their past and present, their development, and the integral benefit of tourism.

I'm not a grammarian, though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We would like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers in order to understand their past, present, development (Is this future or planned development?), and integral benefit to tourism.

 

[szechuanpork]

meaning of value is unclear. is it economic value or historic value or both?

benefit of integral tourism is also unclear. important to tourism?

 

[rsutoratosu]

I have no idea, trying to help an esl student, i myself suck at grammar

 

[phucheneh]

"We’d like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers, understanding its past, present, development and the benefit of integral tourism."

Would you change it to ?

We would like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers. Understanding its past, present, development and the benefit of integral tourism.

ie not use We'd and would that be consider run on sentence ?

Thanks

Your change makes for an incomplete sentence. There's no subject; 'its' is a object. Not to mention that the original seems to have an incorrectly conjugated verb. You would want to add a conjunction and use the base word (understanding > 'and understand') And 'piers' does not agree with 'its'- you want 'their.'

Otherwise it's all style-related. As in, what makes it sound good. Past, present, and development in the above would probably sound better if they each had their own pronoun (their past, their present...), but then it gets a bit repetitive. Solution: write it differently.

Who is 'we?' If this is a paper, you shouldn't be writing from a first person perspective. Is 'we' intended to be the author and the reader?

Is there only one benefit of 'integral tourism'?

Why 'past' and 'development' both? Things develop in the past. Maybe clarify (if this is the intent) by using 'history' and 'origins' or something like that.

Assuming I actually understand what is trying to be said, I'd do something like:

'The value of the four main sightseeing piers must be discussed. There is a requirement of familiarity with their entire history, from inception to present day, if one wishes to truly understand the benefits of integral tourism.'

 

[allisolm]

We would like to discuss the value of the four main sightseeing piers in order to understand their past, present, development (Is this future or planned development?), and integral benefit to tourism.

This.