🎁 A holiday package to celebrate the season! Click here and shop now!

TextRanch

The best way to perfect your writing.

Discover why 1,062,726 users count on TextRanch to get their English corrected!

1. Input your text below.
2. Get it corrected in a few minutes by our editors.
3. Improve your English!

One of our experts will correct your English.

Our experts

The text would be Imprinted behind the logo vs The text would be Imprint behind The logo

The correct phrase is 'the text would be imprinted behind the logo'. 'Imprinted' is the correct past participle form of the verb 'imprint' in this context.

Last updated: March 29, 2024 • 598 views

The text would be Imprinted behind the logo

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

This phrase is used to describe the action of placing or engraving text behind a logo.
  • Stacey would be imprinted to me right now like a werewolf.
  • You said the text would be aligned but I am not sure with what.
  • The meaning of the text would not be changed as a consequence and it would mean that the text would no longer be subject to mediocre and nauseating exploitation.
  • We are prepared to withdraw it, and the text would then be worded in accordance with Mr Oostlander's oral formulation.
  • The text would certainly need to be re-written on certain points and this would open Pandora's box.
  • The text would thus not really provide a 'solution' to the legal questions at stake.
  • Except for the part dealing with cloned meat and a few other foodstuffs, the text would have been adopted by a very large majority.
  • Similarly, the rules contained in the text would enable consumer rights to be strengthened with regard to information and delivery.
  • Rejecting the text would simply produce what the US industry and many of those responsible in the European Union have long desired: no labelling at all.
  • The text would then read as follows:
  • The text would therefore read as follows: 'state aid rules to measures taken and their conformity with the Treaty provisions'.
  • The remainder of the text would remain the same.
  • Changing the text would be disrespectful towards almost half the population of the European Union, who have already ratified it.
  • I note in particular that when you talk about the international law with which the text would not be compatible, you are referring in fact to the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
  • The text would be improved if it were amended to make that clear, perhaps this can be done when it is proof-read.
  • The text would read thus: 'the defence of the interests of indigenous populations and of minorities such as the mountain people of Vietnam, victims of systematic repression.
  • Let me repeat, however, that if we had from the outset insisted that the Charter must be binding, then the text would have been disappointing.
  • The Commission accepts them, with the exception of Amendments Nos 27 and 30, where the attempt to simplify the text would detract from the meaning.
  • The text would then be worded as follows: "Calls on the Member States, in close collaboration with the Commission services, to initiate a qualitative and quantitative revision".
  • Our failure to agree this crucial part of the text would leave disabled people quite literally falling through the crack, a crack for which we would ourselves be responsible.

The text would be Imprint behind The logo

This phrase is incorrect. 'Imprint' should be in the past participle form 'imprinted' in this context.

  • You said the text would be aligned but I am not sure with what.
  • The meaning of the text would not be changed as a consequence and it would mean that the text would no longer be subject to mediocre and nauseating exploitation.
  • We are prepared to withdraw it, and the text would then be worded in accordance with Mr Oostlander's oral formulation.
  • The text would certainly need to be re-written on certain points and this would open Pandora's box.
  • The text would thus not really provide a 'solution' to the legal questions at stake.
  • Except for the part dealing with cloned meat and a few other foodstuffs, the text would have been adopted by a very large majority.
  • Similarly, the rules contained in the text would enable consumer rights to be strengthened with regard to information and delivery.
  • Rejecting the text would simply produce what the US industry and many of those responsible in the European Union have long desired: no labelling at all.
  • The text would then read as follows:
  • The text would therefore read as follows: 'state aid rules to measures taken and their conformity with the Treaty provisions'.
  • The remainder of the text would remain the same.
  • Changing the text would be disrespectful towards almost half the population of the European Union, who have already ratified it.
  • I note in particular that when you talk about the international law with which the text would not be compatible, you are referring in fact to the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
  • The text would be improved if it were amended to make that clear, perhaps this can be done when it is proof-read.
  • The text would read thus: 'the defence of the interests of indigenous populations and of minorities such as the mountain people of Vietnam, victims of systematic repression.
  • Let me repeat, however, that if we had from the outset insisted that the Charter must be binding, then the text would have been disappointing.
  • The Commission accepts them, with the exception of Amendments Nos 27 and 30, where the attempt to simplify the text would detract from the meaning.
  • The text would then be worded as follows: "Calls on the Member States, in close collaboration with the Commission services, to initiate a qualitative and quantitative revision".
  • Our failure to agree this crucial part of the text would leave disabled people quite literally falling through the crack, a crack for which we would ourselves be responsible.
  • The text would then read: 'calls for the recommendations and related observations to be included in EU dialogues with both sides, as well as in multilateral fora'.

Related Comparisons

The order is on the system vs The order is in the system attached are the requested documents vs attached is the requeste documents The document is confirmed. vs The document has been confirmed. The transaction must be within limit vs The transaction must be within the limit attached are the files vs attahced is the files I have finished except for vs attached are the documents

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9TextRanch on TrustPilot).

Why choose TextRanch?

Lowest prices
Up to 50% lower than other online editing sites.

Fastest Times
Our team of editors is working for you 24/7.

Qualified Editors
Native English experts for UK or US English.

Top Customer Service
We are here to help. Satisfaction guaranteed!

×

💝 TextRanch Holidays Offer! 💝️

25% special discount
Stock up on credits for the entire year!

Grab this offer now!