to get acquainted with, get to know the Word Reference Forums

It said only that Peter met Paul for the first time

Why do the knowledge with pronoun is correct, while to make the acquaintance with somebody (Name of person) is heavy? Heavy means qua it does rarely say that? When it is said that it is heavy, it means that it is not grammatically wrong, but the construction sounds bad to the ears of the regulars, and qua there are ways more simple to sayI have the impression qua with the first the action is mutual (both are well qua there is qua a single subject), which would be equivalent to know (one another). With the second, I have the impression that the action is not necessarily mutual, Peter makes the acquaintance of Paul - gt do you understand that only one Stone has knowledge, or that Paul was also made aware (of Stone)? In this case, when we say: Peter was acquainted with Paul (or Peter, made the acquaintance of Paul) this means that only one Stone has knowledge, which implies that Paul has not made the acquaintance of Peter? And unlike Peter and Paul have the knowledge because here the action is mutual, the fact that the knowledge of the other? - In the examples it was after with things and not people then it is clear that the action is not mutual. Does not imply that Paul did not, on this occasion, the knowledge of Stone. It is possible that Peter or Paul knew of the other's view, or by hearsay, but there is nothing that says. Yes, it is true, strictly speaking the only thing qua we can say is that Stone is aware of, but for Paul, one does not know, for him nothing is said.

In other words, you give him perhaps a broader sense

Good Ah? However, from what I understood from what you said I thought qua there was a difference between Peter and Paul met and Peter was acquainted with Paul (or Peter, made the acquaintance of Paul), no? In the first it is also argued that Paul was aware (of Stone), unlike the second where it is not known if Paul has or has not the knowledge of Stone. If Peter makes the acquaintance of Paul, necessarily Paul is also the knowledge of Stone, no? Because both qua they have not knowledge, by definition they do not know - personally, in any case: they may have heard of another, but without his knowledge. I can't imagine a situation where one would be the knowledge of the other, who would know already personally.

I was wondering if in this sentence, Peter was acquainted with Paul the action was mutual (although only Stone to be about), if yes then it would be equivalent to Peter and Paul made each other's acquaintance (the other), no? The misunderstanding may just be a difference in the fields of application of the phrase verbal notice.

if a friend refers a man away by telling you: this is my father, but qua being angry with him he refuses to speak with him and, therefore, to present to you, the one to the other, would you say the evening by telling the story of the scene: I got acquainted with the father of my friend.