A word and a sentence, help

[irmamar]

I've written the following sentence:

In the nineteenth century franchise expanded in Britain, but parliamentary reform actually occurred in a less homogeneous way.


Does "franchise" mean "sufragio" or "derecho al voto"? :thinking:

And my book says (about parliamentary reform): "occurred in a more hesitant and patchy fashion", but I don't like this sentence and I changed it for the one underlined that I wrote before (in a less homogeneous way). Is this change correct? :thinking:


Thanks. :)

[Perikles]

I've written the following sentence:

In the nineteenth century franchise expanded in Britain, but parliamentary reform actually occurred in a less homogeneous way.


Does "franchise" mean "sufragio" or "derecho al voto":good:? :thinking:

And my book says (about parliamentary reform): "occurred in a more hesitant and patchy fashion", but I don't like this sentence and I changed it for the one underlined that I wrote before (in a less homogeneous way). Is this change correct? :thinking:


Thanks. :)Franchise means in this context (probably) The right of voting at public elections, especially for election of the legislative body.

Your change to homogenous is correct, but I don't see what is wrong with in a more hesitant and patchy fashion which seems to me to be quite descriptive.

Sobre gustos no hay nada escrito :)

By the way, to be really really critical, you should insert a comma after In the nineteenth century. That way, it is read much easier to read. :)

[irmamar]

Yes, sorry for the comma. :o

I changed the sentence because I'm adapting that 'thick vocabulary' into my own, much more simple to understand and studying. ;)

Thanks. :)

[Awaken]

In the nineteenth century, the franchise of citizens expanded in Britain; however, parliamentary reform actually occurred in a less homogeneous way.

Franchise is not as common in use here in the noun form by itself. I prefer having more context because "franchise" as a lone noun just doesn't sound right to me, even though it is technically correct.

You can also consider using "enfranchise (verb)" and "enfranchisement(noun)" which are more clearly associated with the right to vote.

I also added the "; however, " clause as this sentence seemed to fit perfectly for its use.

Sorry for the information overload.

[irmamar]

Thank you, Awaken. Yes, that means right to vote; later the book talked about the electoral system. :)

[JPablo]

That way, it is read much easier to read. :)
:eek:
Is that what you meant to say or am I :crazy:?

:thinking:
Isn't something like,
That way, it is read much easier.
or
That way, it is much easier to read... ?

(I know that "a buen entendedor, con pocas palabras basta" but, still...)

[Perikles]

That way, it is read much easier to read. :)

:eek:
Is that what you meant to say or am I :crazy:?
Ooops My fault. I meant either it is read much more easily or it is much easier to read. I must have started to write one of them, and then changed my mind to the other. It has just taken me some time to see what the problem was - the first 'read' seems invisible. (Well actually, there is only one past participle read with a short ea as in red - the other is a present infinitive read with a long e :rolleyes:)

[JPablo]

Ah, okay, I thought something like that had happened... and I was wandering... I mean, wondering! :) :D

[chileno]

Ooops My fault. I meant either it is read much more easily or it is much easier to read. I must have started to write one of them, and then changed my mind to the other. It has just taken me some time to see what the problem was - the first 'read' seems invisible. (Well actually, there is only one past participle read with a short ea as in red - the other is a present infinitive read with a long e :rolleyes:)

RED wine

And those fingers follow...

:rolleyes:

:)

It happens all too often to me, heart medicine, you know.