|
|
|
Wednesday, September 16, 2015 |
|
Thursday, April 2, 2020 11:35:14 AM |
2,460
[0.25% of all post / 1.48 posts per day] |
|
nightdream wrote:
I don't know is it incorrect or not. So I asked.
____________________
As already mentioned, both your sentences are incorrect.
|
______________
Your original question was
Is "Some African countries" or "African countries" the antecedent of the relatives clauses in both 1 and 2?
1. Some African countries which are very poor have to be helped by international organisations.
2. Some African countries, which are very poor, have to be helped by international organisations.
Let me first touch upon a "non-identifying (= non-defining; non-restrictive) clause". These clauses do not identify or classify; they simply tell us more about the antecedent (person, thing etc) that is already identified. The use of comma before and after the non-identifying clause helps in its clear and unambiguous identification. In simple language, try to read the sentence without the clause between the two commas. If the sentence is meaningful and grammatically correct, it confirms that the clause between the two commas is a "non-identifying (= non-defining; non-restrictive) clause". This is the case in your sentence 2. Sentence 1 is incorrect as the "non-identifying" clause does not have a comma before and after it. It is emphasized that an "identifying clause" is not separated by commas. This is because the noun would be incomplete without the identifying relative clause.
Note the expression "that is already identified" in the preceding paragraph. The antecedent is "Some African countries". "Some" is an indefinite determiner. "African" is used as an adjective of the noun "countries". So the antecedent is "countries". "African" pertains to the countries being referred to. The phrase "Some African countries" functions as an antecedent of the "non-identifying (= non-defining; non-restrictive) clause". I wouldn't agree with the implied inference that 'all African countries" are poor". Drag0nspeaker has already mentioned that there are some African countries which are not "very poor".
I hope it helps.
|
nightdream wrote:Can one begin a sentence with "the"? Is it acceptable? For example:
"Once upon a time there were (the) man and (the) woman"?
"Once upon a time there were (the) wolf and (the) fox"?
_____________________
Let me try to explain why the use of "the" in these sentences is incorrect.
Ask yourself the question: Is the reader/listener of your sentence certain about the noun (man/woman/wolf/fox etc)you are referring to. Can the listener visualize which specific noun (person/animal) you are talking about?
Since the answer is in the negative, the use of "the" is incorrect. It is possible to use the indefinite article "a" in your sentences.
I hope it helps.
|
Koh Elaine wrote:The couple brought three beautiful boys to the word. Will (23), and two twins, Joel and Ed(19). At the beginning of 2007, Richard and Kate noticed that their marriage was starting to face some troubles.
Is "two twins" correct?
Thanks.
_________________
The word "two" is redundant. Its sense is already implied in "twins".
Also, there is a typing error. "Word" should be "world".
|
Koh Elaine wrote:With the escalating severity of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak globally, I wanted to reach out to assure you that we remain totally committed to serving your banking needs, as well as to share updates on our response.
1. Why is "wanted" used instead of"want" when the bank's officer is addressing their clients?
2. Should it be "outbreaks" instead?
Thanks.
__________________
There is nothing wrong with the use of "wanted". Use the verb "desired" and the purpose is clear. If you use "want" or "desire" you are focusing on the present extending into the future time. However, the writer has used "wanted". It implies that the desire developed at some time in the past. The result of this "desire" starting at some time in the past period. The desire/want is over. Te writer is now doing some action as deemed by him/her.
The use of "outbreak" is correct. The sub-events are being considered as a part of one major event. They are not distinct and different - they have some connection!
I hope it helps.
|
Koh Elaine wrote:After completing his travels for Buddhist study, Renchō returned to Seichōji Temple.
Is 'for' the correct preposition?
Thanks.
__________________
The use of "for" is correct. It is used to say what the purpose of the travel was.
|
Joe Kim wrote:Thank you.
Your examples are all correct with "to", but it seems to me that my version of simple sentence used in playing card games, such as pokemon seems like #2 may not fit well for this kind of talk.
Let me try to describe better of the context.
Kid A: my card is Pikachu. His ability is jap(?).
Kid B: oh, yeah, mine is punch.
Aren't they more natural without "to"?
_____________________
This dialogue will do in informal spoken English. So long as the text is understood, such sentences are acceptable in the given context.
However, my comments and also that of Drag0nspeaker are based on the standard use of the given words.
I hope it helps.
|
Joe Kim wrote:1. The robot's ability is fight.
2. The robot's ability is to fight.
Is #2 incorrect?
_____________________
Say: The robot has the ability to fight. OR This robot is able to fight.
If you have ability, you are able to do something, especially something that is unusual or that most people cannot do.
Your second sentence is the preferred option between your two options.
|
nightdream wrote:Would it be correct if I write:
"Now it became clear for me"?
Or should I write:
"Now it has become clear for me"?
_________________
Use your second sentence. "Now" connects the state with the present time.
|
Reiko07 wrote:(1) Yoko said, "To me, geometry is harder than algebra."
(2) Yoko said, "For me, geometry is harder than algebra."
Which is correct? If both are correct, is there any difference in meaning/connotation between them?
____________
Rewrite the sentence and you will not take long to decide your preference.
- Geometry is harder than algebra for me.
- Geometry is harder than algebra to me.
I would prefer my first sentence.
|
|