''Meat from an infected animal should not be fed to dogs or cats.''
What a strange sentence structure. Does it sound right?
grazie
What a strange sentence structure. Does it sound right?
grazie
Meat from an infected animal should not be fed to dogs
It is a perfectly acceptable passive sentence in formal English. You can also reverse the structure if you want to emphasize the fact that specifically dogs and cats should not be given the given type of meat: "Dogs or cats should not be fed with meat from an infected animal."
Easterner:
I think for the rewording of that sentence it is better to say:
"Dogs and cats should not be fed meat from an infected animal"
You don't need the 'with' in there, and also, in the sentence given by the original poster, 'or' is correctly used because neither one nor the other should be fed meat. However, in your sentence it would be better to use 'and'. This just sounds right, and more natural- it would be what a native speaker would say. I'm a native speaker, and as such don't really think about these things, hence, I'm not really sure why it should be 'and' but I will go away and have a think about it.
Ben
I think for the rewording of that sentence it is better to say:
"Dogs and cats should not be fed meat from an infected animal"
You don't need the 'with' in there, and also, in the sentence given by the original poster, 'or' is correctly used because neither one nor the other should be fed meat. However, in your sentence it would be better to use 'and'. This just sounds right, and more natural- it would be what a native speaker would say. I'm a native speaker, and as such don't really think about these things, hence, I'm not really sure why it should be 'and' but I will go away and have a think about it.
Ben
"What a strange sentence structure. Does it sound right?"
Yes. It's perfectly fine.
Yes. It's perfectly fine.
"It doesn't sound odd to me at all. "
Ditto. If this were a legal case it'd be thrown out of court.
Ditto. If this were a legal case it'd be thrown out of court.
Okay, if you break this sentence down, Giovanna, it is basically:
Meat (...) should not be fed to dogs or cats.
The phrase "from an infected animal" describes the MEAT.
What may be throwing you off is that "Should not be fed" is a PASSIVE verb construction.
If you wanted to rephrase this sentence to an ACTIVE verb construction (or whatever that type of sentence is formally called in grammar), you would say:
"Do not feed meat from an infected animal to dogs or cats",
OR
"Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal."
That may be what you were expecting to see, and it would also be a perfectly valid way of saying it, but DO NOT tends to sound like a direct order, very pushy and commanding. The passive construction is often used to keep this "bossy" tone out of what you are saying; "Meat from an infected animal SHOULD NOT be fed to dogs or cats" sounds more like a recommendation than an order.
Does that help?
Meat (...) should not be fed to dogs or cats.
The phrase "from an infected animal" describes the MEAT.
What may be throwing you off is that "Should not be fed" is a PASSIVE verb construction.
If you wanted to rephrase this sentence to an ACTIVE verb construction (or whatever that type of sentence is formally called in grammar), you would say:
"Do not feed meat from an infected animal to dogs or cats",
OR
"Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal."
That may be what you were expecting to see, and it would also be a perfectly valid way of saying it, but DO NOT tends to sound like a direct order, very pushy and commanding. The passive construction is often used to keep this "bossy" tone out of what you are saying; "Meat from an infected animal SHOULD NOT be fed to dogs or cats" sounds more like a recommendation than an order.
Does that help?
I didn't know one says FEED TO DOGS OR CATS. I've always thought it is FEED DOGS ARE CASTS...I would say
''Do not feed feed dogs or cats with meat from an infected animal''
''Feed to'' confuses me.
Many thanks.
''Do not feed feed dogs or cats with meat from an infected animal''
''Feed to'' confuses me.
Many thanks.
I didn't know one says FEED TO DOGS OR CATS. I've always thought it is FEED DOGS AND CATS...I would say
''Do not feed feed dogs or cats with meat from an infected animal''
''Feed to'' confuses me.
Many thanks.
''Do not feed feed dogs or cats with meat from an infected animal''
''Feed to'' confuses me.
Many thanks.
Giovanna,
It does seem confusing because "Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal" is a perfectly valid sentence. I'm no English teacher, but the way I would rationalize it would be that "to" shows to who/what the action is applicable to (this is the subject) because it has been separated from the action.
''Meat from an infected animal should not be fed to dogs or cats.'
Action: should not be fed
Applicable to/Subject: dogs or cats.
"To" would not have to be used if the action and what it is applicable to had not been separated:
This is the active form of that sentence.
"Dogs or cats should not be fed meat from an infected animal"
Indeed, in your sentence, "Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal" the action and the subject have not been separated in this imperative sentence.
Let's rearrage your sentence so that the actiion and the subject are separated. We must use "to": "Do not feed meat from an infected animal to dogs or cats"
Otherwise: "Do not feed meat from an infected animal dogs or cats"
Here "dogs or cats" look out of place, but perhaps specifying what types of infected animals they warn against. It seems like the action "do not feed" is applicable to "meat" and how do you feed meat anyway? There is no clear subject here.
Anyway... anyone who has a more coherent explanation...
It does seem confusing because "Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal" is a perfectly valid sentence. I'm no English teacher, but the way I would rationalize it would be that "to" shows to who/what the action is applicable to (this is the subject) because it has been separated from the action.
''Meat from an infected animal should not be fed to dogs or cats.'
Action: should not be fed
Applicable to/Subject: dogs or cats.
"To" would not have to be used if the action and what it is applicable to had not been separated:
This is the active form of that sentence.
"Dogs or cats should not be fed meat from an infected animal"
Indeed, in your sentence, "Do not feed dogs or cats meat from an infected animal" the action and the subject have not been separated in this imperative sentence.
Let's rearrage your sentence so that the actiion and the subject are separated. We must use "to": "Do not feed meat from an infected animal to dogs or cats"
Otherwise: "Do not feed meat from an infected animal dogs or cats"
Here "dogs or cats" look out of place, but perhaps specifying what types of infected animals they warn against. It seems like the action "do not feed" is applicable to "meat" and how do you feed meat anyway? There is no clear subject here.
Anyway... anyone who has a more coherent explanation...
Giovanna, your alternative works to, but "feed to" IS a common English construction as well, when the object of the feeding (dogs and cats) follows the verb. You will see this also in words like "give":
Do not give children aspirin.
Do not give aspirin to children.
Do not give children aspirin.
Do not give aspirin to children.