correspond

hi, everyone.

Can I have your judgement wheather grammer of the following sentence is correct or not?

English corresponds to the grobal lingua franca more than German.

Hi. I see nothing wrong with your use of "corresponds" in that sentence. Of course, "grobal" lingua franca should be "global" lingua franca.

I don't think "correspond" is the correct verb.
It seems to say that there are three things—English, German, and the global lingua franca
(and the definite article suggests that readers know and agree on the identity of the GLF)—
and that English has some relationship with the GLF that is stronger than the relationship between German and the GLF.
If I understand the intended meaning, I would say something like
"English fits the role of global lingua franca more than German does"
or
"English is more of a global lingua franca than German is."

I beg your torelance for the delay of reply.

Hi, owlman5, thank you for your judgement and for making me aware of the misspelling. In the view of grammer and use of corresponds, I owed my confidence to you.

Cenzontle, thank you for your minute explanation. I thought again that “a GLF” seems to be more appropriate to my intention than “the GLF”. Because, as you called my attention, the sentence I wrote has no context.
The nuance of the last sentence of your reply is near to my intended one, I supposed.
I intended to use a GLF as a category that contained some languages, and intended to mention when comparing English to German, English was more typically to the category, additionally to say, English was the prototype of it.
Do you recommend your last sentence for my said intention and is the “correspond” I used incorrect ?

If you want to use "correspond", I suggest the following:

English corresponds to the role of global lingua franca more than German does.

Cenzontle said:

If you want to use "correspond", I suggest the following:

Thank you.