|
Drag0nspeaker |
|
Advanced Member |
| Security Guard |
| Life, languages, Scientology |
| Male |
|
|
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 |
|
Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:26:56 AM |
29,456
[3.30% of all post / 11.77 posts per day] |
|
Hi D00M.
"Urgent" is used correctly. However, this is probably the least usual usage.
You will more commonly see "<something> is urgent" or "urgent message".
**************
However, the rest of the sentence is phrased in unusual ways.
It is most usual to give an order to do something, not an order of doing something.
Please take these words seriously and give the urgent order to make a film . . .
It is usual to speak of something 'of this character' rather than 'for this character'.
"Idol" is normally used for a person (or the image of a person) - a film is not an idol, it is a 'huge success' or 'a blockbuster' or (on the net) 'goes viral'.
Please take these words seriously and give the urgent order to make a film of this character, to grow in popularity to a supernatural level and become a blockbuster.
*************
I have just seen that it may mean something different:
Please take these words seriously and give the urgent order to make a film starring this character, so the star will grow in popularity to a supernatural level and become an idol.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
OK - I believe you that people may say that, but it doesn't make sense.
A similar dress is not the same dress.
The same dress is the same dress - one person must take it off before the other can put it on.
The same dress MUST be exactly the same dress - it can't be the same if it's not the same dress. So 'exactly' is not needed.
One might have a similar dress (the same style from the same shop, but a different colour, for example) - or an exactly similar dress (same colour, pattern, style, bought from the same shop).
A pair of identical twins can be exactly similar (same character, same looks, same birthday, same parents) but they are not the same person - they are similar.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
It is not really a verb here, it is an adjective.
"Let's get started" really means "Let's become started".
"Started" is the state 'we' move in to.
If you wanted to use a verb, it would be "Let's start" - which can be intransitive like that or, "Let's start the dinner", transitive.
***********
You CAN add the action to "let's get started" but not really as an object. It seems to me more of a complement or an adverbial participle phrase.
"Let's get started on the accounts."
"Let's get started on doing the accounts."
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
Hi!
"Impulses are sent" is not simple present, it is the simple passive.
Impulses are sent by something . . .
Something sends impulses.
"Impulses are being sent" is the passive progressive (as you rightly say) - "being" changes the passive to the passive progressive.
Impulses are sent (passive) >>> Impulses are being sent (passive progressive).
This question is asking about a specific time - a time at which no impulses are being sent.
You cannot use the "present simple" for a specific time.
The simple tense is used for 'repeated, habitual or occasional actions'.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
There are two facts . . . (well, there are more, but two which I see as relevant).
1. Journalists are not experts in English language, they are trained in journalism, not English.
The stress in journalism is 'selling newspapers' or 'attracting attention to your news-site' - not 'writing well'.
2. What sells newspapers is blood, death, controversy and scandal - not truth or correct writing.
************
As an example - the sentence you quote does not make much sense, even with the punctuation correct.
Fourteen people were killed over the three-day weekend.
200 people died in the last week.
WHY stress fourteen deaths in three days (nearly five a day), when there must have been 186 in the four earlier days (forty-seven a day)?
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
Yes - the adjective is "three-day-long" and it modifies the noun "weekend".
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
Hi!
To be honest, the whole concept sounds unnatural to me - unless you (or the person writing it) is the ultimate egotist. I don't know how it could be written any differently.
"Me, me, me" is not British - "you can send requests for pictures of ME and only ME and any requests which are not for pictures of ME are ignored".
Requests for images of me having a special relationship with one (or two) other people . . .
The grammar of the paragraph is OK - but you asked about naturalness.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
It sounds OK in an advert for a computer game, or in some religious context.
It's not something you'd hear every day on the streets of London.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
Hi Koh Elaine.
Firstly, it does not really mean anything - "exact" is an adjective and cannot be used to modify an adjective like 'same'.
Grammatically, the phrase should be "wearing exactly the same clothes".
However, strictly, 'exact' or 'exactly' would be redundant.
"same" means "identical" or "unchanged" or "exactly similar". There is no room in the definitions of 'same' for any inexactness. They are the same clothes, or they are not.
"Wearing the same clothes" means that the clothes are identical and unchanged.
Saying "exactly the same" does not add anything. "Exactly" is redundant.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
The second sounds better - but both mean that your company is no longer honest.
Our company is, and has always been, based on honesty.
Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
|
|