LifeDeath wrote:I just thought that the "I think" part was used to express an opinion, in the same way as we use "I guess", "I suppose", etc. That's why I expected something after "therefore I am".
LifeDeath wrote:The first sentence I'd like to ask about is "This type of behavior is not appropriate for neural network simulation where millions and sometimes billions of iterations need to be applied to a structure."
The teacher marked the word "need" in red. She said that in this context only a passive form of "need" could be used, i.e.: "Billions of iterations are needed to be applied to a structure", or that I should have used a different verb instead of "need". She said that "are" is the best option in the given context and some other verbs are possible, too, like "should" and "must". Since I was writing the annotation myself, I used "need" and not any other verb for a reason. I just want you to tell me if it's correct as is. I suspect this has something to do with the middle voice, but I'm not sure.
LifeDeath wrote:The second sentence was "Cycle after cycle, this force slowly stretched the nanoparticles out until they smeared into a very thick uniform film of single vanadium pentoxide molecules without the potential energy centers which completely inhibited its ability to conduct, as ? was observed on a voltmeter screen" where she put a question mark before the word "was" in the second part.
LifeDeath wrote:I'm not sure what she actually meant there, so I just want to know if such phrasing is fine (without anything put in before the "was"). I'm struggling to recall which grammar topics I should read on it, but I feel this is correct anyway, though I'm not totally sure now that it's been corrected. (I even think that in a lower register the "was" could be dropped off completely and we'd still be left with a legitimate sentence, with a little exception that the fact that the observation took place namely in the past would now be a bit unclear).
LifeDeath wrote:Here I posted a recording of me reading a book. Many people said that I sounded like I was from the Southern US having that regional accent. Can you give it a brief listen and corroborate or dispute their impression?
LifeDeath wrote:There's the song "No Favors" by Big Sean ft. Eminem and there's this line in it:
"If she was flavor, I won't save her".
At first, it seemed just fine but then I remembered standard classification of conditional sentences and doubted a bit. I think most English learners would expect "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her" because this is what we're taught. If + past, then + would. But I thought that the actual use of tenses can be more flexible than those written into books of grammar and I should get the meaning just from looking at the sentence. What it seems to me is that he compares his expression of a woman to flavor, like figuratively. He didn't like the woman, so he wanted to have her (save) in his collection of other flavors if she was a flavor as well. But then, why not "wouldn't save her"? I thought this might be because he's deciding it as he's saying the sentence. Right at the moment's of speaking he's not willing to save her, that's why he says "won't". But then, since he's thinking about it and it has bearing on the present moment, why isn't it "If she has been flavor"?
LifeDeath wrote:So why isn't it "If she is flavor, I won't save her" or "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her"?
linguoboy wrote:Just poetic licence, I guess.
LifeDeath wrote:I want you to elucidate it for me if that's truly incorrect or not. I'm pretty sure the teacher marked that part in read because she didn't like the "not only" construction. I've read that this is rather formal phrasing, which makes it even more appropriate for formal contexts. So is this correct? (given what's written below)
LifeDeath wrote:But then I looked at the sentence once more and started to doubt a bit. Indeed, I've read that "not only" should always be accompanied by "but also", which is not true for my sentence.
LifeDeath wrote:Logically, I feel that if "but also" part is prominently meantimplied in a sentence, it can be omitted. In my case, "but" is just omitted there, and "also" is substituted by "too". But what it turns out now it seems to me is that the second part is not logically connected to the first. That is, if I stared to talk about some properties of molybdenum in the "not only" part, I should add something to it in the "but also" part. Like "Not only can molybdenum be used for such applications, but it can also be used for other applications." But instead, I started to talk about some other materials in the second part, leaving a logical gap between the two parts. I'm pretty sure the teacher didn't mean this, the reason she marked it, as I said, is the use of "not only" itself, and maybe hinting that "but also" must explicitly present in the second part. But let's say the second part is used correctly, would it still be a mistake? (Or maybe the whole sentence is correct as is, but not excellent sounding, I just want to categorize it as really incorrect grammatically or not).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest