Is this sentence grammatically correct: “She would make for a convincing Amy.” [closed]

3

This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.

The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.

tenses past-tense would mood

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

closed as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka Jan 7 at 13:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
  
  – Lawrence
  Jan 7 at 2:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  However, it's film, not flim.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
  
  – raghav
  Jan 7 at 2:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
  
  – vectory
  Jan 7 at 3:13
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 4:30
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

3

This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.

The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.

tenses past-tense would mood

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

closed as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka Jan 7 at 13:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
  
  – Lawrence
  Jan 7 at 2:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  However, it's film, not flim.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
  
  – raghav
  Jan 7 at 2:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
  
  – vectory
  Jan 7 at 3:13
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 4:30
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

3

3

3

This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.

The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.

tenses past-tense would mood

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.

The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.

tenses past-tense would mood

tenses past-tense would mood

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

edited Jan 7 at 10:30

Jesse Steele

583214

583214

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

asked Jan 7 at 2:06

raghavraghav

192

192

closed as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka Jan 7 at 13:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

closed as off-topic by Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka Jan 7 at 13:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Rob_Ster, Jason Bassford, 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj, Chenmunka

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
  
  – Lawrence
  Jan 7 at 2:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  However, it's film, not flim.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
  
  – raghav
  Jan 7 at 2:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
  
  – vectory
  Jan 7 at 3:13
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 4:30
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yes, the sentence is grammatical.
  
  – Lawrence
  Jan 7 at 2:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  However, it's film, not flim.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.
  
  – raghav
  Jan 7 at 2:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.
  
  – vectory
  Jan 7 at 3:13
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.
  
  – Jason Bassford
  Jan 7 at 4:30
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

3

3

Yes, the sentence is grammatical.

– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09

Yes, the sentence is grammatical.

– Lawrence
Jan 7 at 2:09

However, it's film, not flim.

– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15

However, it's film, not flim.

– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 2:15

@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.

– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40

@JasonBassford Thanks i will edit it now.

– raghav
Jan 7 at 2:40

2

2

This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.

– vectory
Jan 7 at 3:13

This question should have been posted on ell.stackexchange.com, if you are new to English.

– vectory
Jan 7 at 3:13

1

1

Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.

– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 4:30

Dropping the for would sound a lot more natural (especially because it's talking about a person), but I don't think leaving it is technically wrong.

– Jason Bassford
Jan 7 at 4:30

 | 
show 3 more comments

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

4

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

add a comment | 

-1

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

add a comment | 

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

4

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

add a comment | 

4

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

add a comment | 

4

4

4

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

edited Jan 7 at 8:08

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

answered Jan 7 at 3:20

Jesse SteeleJesse Steele

583214

583214

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

-1

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

add a comment | 

-1

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

add a comment | 

-1

-1

-1

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

edited Jan 7 at 4:18

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

answered Jan 7 at 3:12

vectoryvectory

1498

1498

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here