ON its own ?
Почему Питер считает граффити отдельным видом искусства, а не вандализмом?
Traduções dos usuários (3)
- 1.
How is it that Peter considers graffiti an art form all its own and not a form of vandalism?
Tradução adicionada por ⁌ ULY ⁍Ouro ru-en4 - 2.
How is it that Peter considers graffiti an art form unto itself and not vandalism?
Tradução adicionada por ⁌ ULY ⁍Ouro ru-en4 - 3.
How does Peter come to think of graffiti as its own art form and not as an act of vandalism?
Tradução adicionada por ⁌ ULY ⁍Ouro ru-en3
Discussão (9)
When you don’t really want to know “why,” but rather are perplexed as to why something that’s so clear to you isn’t so to someone else, it’s better to use HOW IS IT THAT... instead of why.
ON ITS OWN = alone; ALL ITS OWN = in its own class
Thank you dear Uly!
Songbird, your questions are always so interesting 🥰
👍
When you don’t really want to know “why,” but rather are perplexed as to why something that’s so clear to you isn’t so to someone else, it’s better to use HOW IS IT THAT... instead of why.
1. Why do you think that this isn't just a straightforward question, e.g. to some text/story?
2.What is clear to you in this case? That graffiti isn't an art form? I'd say this is debatable.
For two reasons: (1) unless the graffiti is limited to a space specially designated for it, it IS vandalism, so we’re left to wonder how Peter doesn’t see that; (2) even if it is a question pertaining to a story/text, we all know that graffiti is vandalism, so at the most, we would wonder WHY IS IT THAT... But even here, HOW sounds better. Having said that, there’s nothing wrong with WHY DOES PETER CONSIDER... - I just don’t like it in this context.
First I thought "Питер" in the original question was St. Petersburg...