English language help required

[Deep_Level_Shark]

I'm trying to write an english sentence better way. Here is the sentence:

He died at his residence on 10-Feb-2011 naturally.

Is this a correct english ?

what I tried to mean is that the person had a natural death on that date.how do I write a better english here ? can you please correct it ? what are other possibilities here in wrting ?

Need help.

[Marshall Veteran]

He died in 2011, on the 10th of February of natural causes.

[The Evil Overlord]

He passed away 10th February 2011, I believe it was natural causes.

[hackdoom]

He passed away on the 10th of February, in 2011, of natural causes.

[Deep_Level_Shark]

Here is so far I have written this paragraph...I am not sure if this can be written in a better way.

I have known Mr.X at address Flat-2,City-Y,Dist-Z,Pin-K for the last 6 yrs with good physical & mental health to my knowledge. He passed away on the 10th of February, in 2011, of natural causes.

Can I write at address ? Is it correct ?

I am not sure....can you please correct it

[Gerowen]

It doesn't look too bad. You could just change the word "naturally" to "of natural causes", so that it reads, "He died at his residence on 10-Feb-2011 of natural causes.". Using just the word "naturally" I don't believe is technically improper, but the term used most commonly nowadays when referring to a natural death is "of natural causes".

[Deep_Level_Shark]

Please look at post #5

Do you see any scope of improvement of wrting the paragraph in better way ?

also ...at address is correct ? or I need to write it some other way ?

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

This is how I would write it, though it may be different depending on your location as well as your reason for the writing (letter, article, essay):

He passed away from natural causes at his residence on February 10, 2011.

For professional or formal writing, avoid abbreviations such as Feb or yrs. I'd say there's technically nothing wrong with the way you wrote it; it's merely a matter of convention which is something you learn with time.

I have known Mr. X, whom resided at the address Flat-2, City-Y, Dist-Z, Pin-K, for for the last six years and has always appeared in good physical and mental health.

You should always have a space after punctuation, including in "Mr. X" and the comma-separated list. As well, the bit, "to my knowledge," is implied from the context so I feel it's unnecessary.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Xinok

[Deep_Level_Shark]

This is how I would write it, though it may be different depending on your location as well as your reason for the writing (letter, article, essay):

He passed away from natural causes at his residence on February 10, 2011.

For professional or formal writing, avoid abbreviations such as Feb or yrs. I'd say there's technically nothing wrong with the way you wrote it; it's merely a matter of convention which is something you learn with time.

I have known Mr. X, whom resided at the address Flat-2, City-Y, Dist-Z, Pin-K, for for the last six years and has always appeared in good physical and mental health.

You should always have a space after punctuation, including in "Mr. X" and the comma-separated list. As well, the bit, "to my knowledge," is implied from the context so I feel it's unnecessary.

Thanks Mr Xinok,

I guess you had a typo here ..

I have known Mr. X, whom resided at ....

should have been ....

I have known Mr. X, who resided at ....

is not it ?

Can you please confirm ?

[PNWDweller]

Out of curiosity, why state the address? This is not relevant unless you are writing a legal report or other documentation which requires such data.

This might help with your who vs whom question:

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Who_vs_whom_A_simple_trick_for_determining_when_to_8964.aspx

[jakem1]

He passed away 10th February 2011, I believe it was natural causes.

:rolleyes: This is a pathetic euphemism, not correct English.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Thanks Mr Xinok,

I guess you had a typo here ..

Nope, "whom" would be correct I believe. I can never get it right, myself, but here is the rule

[Barney T. Administrators]

:rolleyes: This is a pathetic euphemism, not correct English.

It is accepted and is correct English, except it is better to say that he died.

[jakem1]

Nope, "whom" would be correct I believe. I can never get it right, myself, but here is the rule

Who is correct, not whom. Who relates to he/she and whom relates to them. If you were to rewrite the sentence accordingly you would say:

have known Mr. X. He resided at ....

Either way, the original sentence is a bit awkward.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Who is correct, not whom.

Told you I could never get it right. :laugh:

[jakem1]

It is accepted and is correct English, except it is better to say that he died.

Agreed. Sorry, I didn't mean that "passed away" isn't correct English. I meant that it's not more correct than "died" and shouldn't automatically be used as a replacement in the way that Dushmany suggested.

Told you I could never get it right. :laugh:

:) It is difficult and I think that's why whom is falling out of favour and is rarely used these days.

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

Who is correct, not whom. Who relates to he/she and whom relates to them. If you were to rewrite the sentence accordingly you would say:

have known Mr. X. He resided at ....

I was trying too hard. :p I know whom to be the objective form of who but haven't quite figured out what that means yet. While I write well, I don't have a good understanding of what makes one form correct or what makes one form better than another. In the end, I simply write whatever sounds good to me.

[The Evil Overlord]

:rolleyes: This is a pathetic euphemism, not correct English.

Ok, how would you have said it, using just the information I had before the OP added to it?

[jakem1]

Ok, how would you have said it, using just the information I had before the OP added to it?

Probably the way Marshall said it right before you posted:

He died in 2011, on the 10th of February of natural causes.

No offence but I can't stand it when people replace died with "passed away". It's an unnecessary Americanism that's creeping into the language for no good reason other than to sugar-coat an unpleasant but normal part of life. It's also a particularly meaningless euphemism given that you don't go anywhere (and certainly don't pass anything) when you die.

[The Evil Overlord]

~snip~

'passed away' is an american term??

I remember it being used on british newsreels back in the late '50's Although I'm only 37 I remember them being shown on a documentary about the BBC vs ITV