On the line of...

[Fear not only believe]

Hello there again! Today we had to write an essay with the topic : "Some people think that money can buy happiness. Many others disagree." At the very end in the conclusion I wrote sonething like this: "My personal view is that neither wealth nor poverty brings happiness. We should be able to say with St. Paul: "I can do everything (speaking on the line of money) in Him who strengthens me.""

Does such usage of that phrase look correct to you? I've seen that construction several times, but I'm not sure about its usage at all.

 

[probus]

"On the line of" is not natural. The phrase I think you are looking for is "along the lines of".

 

[Barb_D]

Or "speaking on the subject of money" perhaps.

(I'd find it hard to believe that anyone argues that poverty brings happiness. They may say it's not a barrier, but few people would say "If only I lost all my money and were terribly poor, then I could be happy!)

 

[probus]

Or "speaking on the subject of money" perhaps.

(I'd find it hard to believe that anyone argues that poverty brings happiness. They may say it's not a barrier, but few people would say "If only I lost all my money and were terribly poor, then I could be happy!)

Actually, Mahatma Gandhi did make an argument very similar to that, incorrectly in my view. Gandhiji argued that the simple life of an Indian villager as it was in the first half of the twentieth century, subsistence farming, spinning one's own yarn with which to weave one's own cloth etc., was the happiest life possible. It shows how wrong a great thinker can be.

 

[Fear not only believe]

(I'd find it hard to believe that anyone argues that poverty brings happiness. They may say it's not a barrier, but few people would say "If only I lost all my money and were terribly poor, then I could be happy!)

Me too, but today people go astray standing for the other utmost - many preach that every Christian should be wealthy and even write books entitled "How to be rich", instead of simply being grateful for everything God has for them.

 

[Fear not only believe]

"On the line of" is not natural. The phrase I think you are looking for is "along the lines of".

Yes, that looks better. If you (or someone else) have a few minutes of time, please take a glance at this link to check whether this phrase was used correctly(maybe it is, but it makes no sense in the context I used it ?!)

https://www.google.hr/#q="speaking+on+the+line+of"

 

[Tdol]

Most of those come from a single source and seem to be using it in a specialist way for following a scent. The fact that there are so few examples suggests that it's not a phrase in use.

 

[Fear not only believe]

"On the line of" is not natural. The phrase I think you are looking for is "along the lines of".

Or "speaking on the subject of money" perhaps.

There was an answer to one of my questions on some other thread, and it brought me back here. Are the following paragraphs/sentences grammatically uncorrect or just a bit "out of fashion", i.e. not common in today's speech (I'm aiming at the above mentioned phrase "on the line(s) of...")?
They are transcripted from addresses (sermons) that were given around 20-s and 30-s

"Faith is a divine establishment of courage until that courage sweeps you through every condition. You cannot come into the Divine Order only on the line of being soaked in the Word."

"I know there are many people who have tried to have faith, and it has been their own faith, and not God’s faith. You have gone through on the lines of your own faith, and still it has not worked."

"I am talking to you tonight on the line of faith to help you."

"Now this word sanctification of the Spirit is not on the lines of sin cleansing. It is a higher order than the redemption work."

"When God speaks He will speak on the lines of wisdom."

 

[emsr2d2]

It might have been natural in the '20s or '30s but it sounds unnatural now. If I saw it in a piece of writing for a test or an exam, I would mark it as incorrect.

 

[Tdol]

The 20s and 30s are bordering on archaic for many things. I am not young, but I have never heard this. It's more than 'out of fashion' to me- if something isn't passed on to the next generation, or skips a generation or two and then gets picked up, it is likely to disappear. I see no signs of this making a comeback.

 

[Fear not only believe]

It might have been natural in the '20s or '30s but it sounds unnatural now. If I saw it in a piece of writing for a test or an exam, I would mark it as incorrect.

The 20s and 30s are bordering on archaic for many things. I am not young, but I have never heard this. It's more than 'out of fashion' to me- if something isn't passed on to the next generation, or skips a generation or two and then gets picked up, it is likely to disappear. I see no signs of this making a comeback.

Thank you both very much!
What is especially important to me is what you emsr2d2 said, namely that you would mark it as incorrect, not just archaic. I will never use it again.
Speaking of this subject, something similar crosses my mind. Would you find it odd if somebody wrote "Many a time" instead of "Many times" in an essay, plus that they are not native speakers? I know it is grammatically sound, but is it stylistically unusual?

 

[Tdol]

It's dated, but it is still in use, so it would be familiar to people- I wouldn't find it particularly odd, unlike on the line of.

 

[emsr2d2]

I have no issue at all with "many a time" (if used correctly).

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes, it's no longer used. Now you know!

And as an American, I want to thank you for "neither wealth nor poverty brings." In this country, verb/noun agreement has also become a thing of the past!

 

[Fear not only believe]

And as an American, I want to thank you for "neither wealth nor poverty brings." In this country, verb/noun agreement has also become a thing of the past!

You mean agreement concerning wealth/poverty (whether either one of them is good), or you're talking in general?