The phrase "acknowledge a distinction" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing the recognition of differences between two or more concepts, ideas, or entities.
Example: "In her analysis, she chose to acknowledge a distinction between the two theories, highlighting their unique contributions to the field."
Alternatives: "recognize a difference" or "note a separation".
They typically acknowledge a distinction between unrestricted quantifiers, whose domain includes even nonexistent objects, and restricted quantifiers, whose domain includes only existent objects.
Arguably, they thus acknowledge a distinction between utility or social norms and semantic truth (though their discussion here uses no word interpretable as "truth").
Some early cases from this Court acknowledged a distinction between acting in an administrative and a judicial capacity.
The comparison to Nazi marches and racist hate speech fails to acknowledge a critical distinction — speaking out in favor of criminal activity versus the carrying out of criminal acts.
Gibson created the term mirror-world to acknowledge a locational-specific distinction in a manufactured object that emerged from a parallel development process, for example opposite-side driving or varied electrical outlets.
Although the importance of differences in user groups has been acknowledged, a clear distinction of archetypical user groups has not yet been made.
Although the principles of relevance account for near-side and far-side inferences, relevance theory acknowledges a fundamental distinction.
However, Byrd acknowledged a clear distinction between her and Dolezal, who denounced her white heritage and purposely decided to change her appearance to identify as black.
Metaphysical realists think that anti-realists are refusing to acknowledge a clear and important distinction.
So to equate CR functionality with SE functionality, or conflate the two by not acknowledging such a distinction, is whether admitted or not panadaptationist.
And the most troubling thing about the anonymous op-ed — apart from the dubious judgment that inspired its writing — is that the author doesn't seem to recognize this issue, or acknowledge any distinction between protecting America from Trump's erratic personality and extra-constitutional whims and frustrating the agenda that won our president the White House.
