Grammar to be revised
Hello,
Here you have a list of some grammar aspects you should revise. These grammar aspects are in relation to some serious mistakes you have made in the written tasks in your exam.
ALREADY CORRECTED (If you want to know the right option, it is necessary to read the different comments).
Active/Passive (I am quite sure you haven´t been choosen the worst men during your whole life)
Pronoun/Noun (Probably, you have had good and bad ones boyfriends)
So/So that (the complementary programme is passed by the whole education community at the beginning of the first term so that there shouldn´t exist any problems…)
Difference between all/everything (e.g. *All is positive)
Indirect questions (e.g. *It would be convenient to identify what are the problems in today´s society)
Mixed conditional (negative past perfect-conditional simple) with inversion (e.g *Hadn´t been for «online dating», I wouldn´t find my girlfriend)
Relative clauses (e.g. *The news that they can be published on the net should be well-attested//*some negative points are known to be issues that they must not be published)
Not only, but also (e.g. *it is really important not only be empathetic but also don´t hurt the feelings of people // *you deserve to meet not only an amiable but sheer honest guy)
Both position (e.g. *You strike me as both a warm-hearted and gregarious girl)
Would like (e.g. *I would like that either religions or traditions such as bullfighters were….)
Inversion (e.g. *Under no circumstances am I go to accept so)
Difference between hope/expect/wish (e.g. *I wish these ideas are welcome //I wish you met a man….)
Question structure (e.g. *What parental veto consists on?
Saxon genitive (*strongly parental veto’ s deffenders)
Second conditional with inversion (e.g. «Were I to have to participate on websites, I must take into consideration the next recommendations»)
Double subject (e.g. *It is crucial an appropriate use of language)
Comparative (e.g. *the absolutest expert// *clevest)
Present perfect simple with «since/for» (e.g. *Since ancient times, the curricula is being imposed as a part of our culture)
Saxon genitive (e.g. *people feelings)
All position (e.g. *We all should be….)
Always position (e.g. *We always should…)
Agreement (e.g. *There are a great numbers of recommendations)
TO BE CORRECTED (Please check that nobody else already corrected the mistake. For that, it is necessary to read the different comments).
Due to /Because of (e.g. *Due to you take part on….// …..because of I can find poeple who…..)
If only (e.g. *If only the information were been found out, we had saved loads of money in fines)
Agreement (e.g. *there have been a prickly issue in education//check there is no mistakes)
Modal verbs and double negative (e.g. *we should all be aware of what we don´t have to do by no means//*you shall speak)
Verb structure (e.g. *It is essential to open your mind and your heart and you don´t give up your dream…//*you need to be sympathetic in order not to hurt people´s feelings and not using obscene vocabulary…//*Why not working together?)
Reflexive/Personal pronoun (e.g. *because themselves were against)
Plural (e.g. *speechs)
Tense (e.g. *Nevertheless, this is not the main controversy. It cames since most of the defenders of this parental veto are from an extreme-right party//*It would be great if you don´t personalise)
Why not take an example of mistake (e.g. *…..) among the ones which have not been corrected yet, and write a comment with a possible correction? This way we can improve grammar, which is sometimes your Achiles heel.
Inversion (e.g. *Under no circumstances am I go to accept so)
It was a failure to write it clean.
Answer: Under no circumstances am I going to accept so.
Good correction of the inversion, yet I would be inclined to change «so» after «accept». Why? Taking into account the fact that we need to be precise at C1 level, I would not use «so». Why? I was reading the previous sentences you used before the expression «Under no circumstances am I going to accept so», and you mentioned two different ideas related to the use of an appropriate language:
Original paragraph by the student:
«In the second instance, when it comes to anticipating a possible issue it is crucial use an appropiate use of language, to name two examples, we might not use four-letter–words or publish personal viewpoints. Under no circumstances am I go to accept so.»
Factoring in the fact that you used «Under no circumstances am I go to accept so» in an independent sentence after a full stop, it is not clear what you are referring to exactly when using «so». Are you referring to «avoiding using four-letter words, or «publishing personal viewpoints? As it is not clear, I would make that reference clearer. How? In my view, it would be convenient to make reference to «avoiding four-letter words» and «publishing personal viewpoints» as they are previously mentioned together. Let me give you an example:
«In the sencond instance, when it comes to anticipating a possible issue, an appropriate use of language is crucial. We should not use four-letter words or publish personal viewpoints, to name but a few examples. Under no circumstances am I going to accept those actions.»
Apart from that, there is another problem in the original paragraph related to coherence, so the above correction is not correct either. There is no relationship between your main idea in this paragraph «crucial to use an appropriate language» with one of the examples given «not publish personal viewpoints». Hence, my correction would be like this:
«In the sencond instance, when it comes to anticipating a possible issue, an appropriate use of language is crucial. We should not use four-letter words or reply to anyone on the fly, to name but a few examples. Under no circumstances am I going to accept those actions.»
The example «reply to anyone on the fly» means «contestar en caliente, de forma inmediata y sin pensar», which can imply using inappropriate language, which is related to your main idea in the paragraph.
I hope you understand my long explanation now.
By the way, «it was a mistake to write it out»
Yes. Thank you so much.
I am quite sure (that) you haven´t chosen the worst men during your whole life / you haven’t been chosen by the worst men
Probably, you have had good and bad boyfriends / Probably, you have had good and bad ones (if the word boyfriends is written in the previous sentence)
the complementary programme is passed by the whole education community at the beginning of the first term so there shouldn´t exist any problems…
All of that is positive / All the things are positive / Everything is positive
It would be convenient to identify which the problems in today´s society are
Were I not to have been for «online dating», I would not find my girlfriend (and no contractions in a very formal expression like an inversion)
The news that can be published on the net should be well-attested
some negative points are known to be issues that must not be published
Wow! Well, tomorrow I will check your corrections as there are a few mistakes.
Let´s check your corrections:
I am quite sure (that) you haven´t chosen the worst men during your whole life / you haven’t been chosen by the worst men
Grammatically, both are correct. Taking into account the sense the student intended to transmit, just «you haven´t chosen…»is correct.
Probably, you have had good and bad boyfriends / Probably, you have had good and bad ones (if the word «boyfriends» is written in the previous sentence)
This correction is right.
The complementary programme is passed by the whole education community at the beginning of the first term so there shouldn´t exist any problems…
This correction is also right. «So» is «asi que» and «So that» is «para que». Just add a comma after «term».
All of that is positive / All the things are positive / Everything is positive
«Everything is positive» is just the only correct answer taking into account the context.
«All the things are positive» is not correct. «All things are positive» is correct
It would be convenient to identify which the problems in today´s society are
There is a mistake in this correction «which». You should have used «what». Revise the difference between «which» and «what». Which colour do you prefer, blue or red? What colour do you prefer?
Were I not to have been for «online dating», I would not find my girlfriend (and no contractions in a very formal expression like an inversion)
That is not correct. The correct sentence would be «Had it not been for «online dating», I would not have a girlfriend now (mixed conditional with inversion) or Had it not been for «online dating», I would not have found a girlfriend (third conditional with inversion).
There are other more advanced possibilities «Were it not for online dating, I would not have found a girlfriend (mixed conditional with inversion using «were it not for») or «Were it not for online dating, I would not have a girlfriend (second conditional with inversion using «were it not for», or even «Were it not to have been for online dating, I would not have found a girlfriend (third conditional using «were to have» to replace «had» in the past perfect, but with inversion) or «Were it not to have been for online dating, I would have a girlfriend now (mixed conditional using «were to have» to replace «had» in the past perfect, but with inversion).
Be careful with the most advanced options. To understand these options it is necessary to learn conditionals with inversion on Random Idea English.
The news that can be published on the net should be well-attested
Good correction!
Some negative points are known to be issues that must not be published
Good correction!
I hope everything is clear.
Saxon genitive (e.g. *strongly parental veto´s deffenders // *people feelings)
I made a mistake when I used saxon genitive. I didn´t realise that the correct form is «strongly parental veto deffenders» because in the sentence I wrote it seems that parental veto is the owner of the deffenders.
«Strongly parental veto deffenders» is not correct. First off, the spelling of «deffenders» is not correct. You must think about the element you want to modify when using «strongly». Apart from that, you need to check if «strongly» is the appropriate grammatical category to modify…. which element? «the parental veto» or «defenders». Finally, you need to think about the most suitable structure «saxon genitive» or «of-structure» to express your idea. Your correction is far from being grammatically correct.
What about «people feelings»?
Looking forward to your answer!
OK, about my expression «strongly parental veto defenders», I consider that expression is completely wrong, so a most suitable expression could be «people who stand up for parental veto».
The expression you used can be corrected. What I want is that you try to correct it following the tips I gave you. Giving an alternative expression is OK, yet I want a correction as this mistake involves basic grammar you must understand (difference between adjective and adverb and genitive/of-structure use). Keep trying to correct it, please!
By the way, do not forget to use «the» before «parental veto».
Well, I wrote a wrong expression that maybe could be «strong defenders of the parental veto».
Great! That is correct!
Good morning!!!
Both position (e.g. *You strike me as both a warm-hearted and gregarious girl)= YOUR STRIKE ME BOTH AS A WARM-HEARTED AND GREGARIOUS GIRL.
Would like (e.g. *I would like that either religions or traditions such as bullfighters were….)= I WOULD LIKE EITHER RELIGIONS OR TRADITIONS SUCH AS BULLFIGHTERS TO BE…..
Not only, but also (e.g. *it is really important not only be empathetic but also don´t hurt the feelings of people // *you deserve to meet not only an amiable but sheer honest guy)= IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT NOT ONLY BE EMPATHETIC BUT ALSO BE CAREFULL WITH PEOPLE’S FEELINGS.
YOU DESERVE TO MEET NOT ONLY AN AMIABLE BUT ALSO A HONEST GUY. (Can sheer go with honest? (in order to emphasise HONEST)
Hello,
Let´s start with the position of «both…and». According to Michael Swan, an expert on grammar, we often balance this structure, in order that the same kind of words or expressions follow «both» and «and».
e.g. She´s both pretty and clever (adjectives)
e.g. I spoke to both the Director and her secretary (nouns)
e.g. She both dances and sings (verbs
Unbalanced sentences with «both…and» are common, but some speakers prefer to avoid them.
e.g. She both dances and she sings (both + verb; and + clause)
e.g. I both play the piano and the violin (both + verb; and + noun)
I would avoid these unbalanced structures as we can make more mistakes. Compare the sentences below:
e.g. I both play the piano and the violin («both» refers to «play the piano» and «play the violin»)
e.g. You both play the piano and the violin («both can refer to «you» (=you two) or to «play the piano» and «play the violin»)
Unbalanced structures can lead to unclear references.
Taking this information into consideration, I would dare to say that the use of «both..and» in your sentence is related to the adjectives «warm-hearted» and «gregarious». Thus, I would say «You strike me as a both warm-hearted and gregarious girl.»
Remember this tip: «In most cases we try to put «both» as near as possible to the two things being referenced».
With respect to the correction of «would like», I must say that it is correct. Just one more thing to add, as you used «traditions», I would have used «bullfighting» rather than «bullfighters»
Regarding «not only, but also». your corrections are not right. Why? Let me explain.
To start with, generally speaking «not only, but also» frequently appears in balanced structures, that is, before the words or expressions that they modify. In your sentence I would dare to say again that you want to modify «empathetic» and due to that you need to modify another adjective. Thus, my correction would be:
e.g. It is important to be not only empathetic, but also …..(here you need to write another adjective. «Careful» would be ok). In short, we would say «It is important to be not only empathetic, but also careful with people´s feelings or about/of/with hurting people´s feelings.
Following the above rule, we would say «you deserve to meet not only an amiable guy, but also honest.
Regarding your question «Can «sheer» go with «honest»?», my answer would be «no» and «yes». «Yes» taking into account that «sheer» is according to some dictionaries like COLLINS or WORDREFERNCE an adverb with different meanings, being one of them «completely/absolutely». However, I would say «no» bearing in mind that some dictionaries like OXFORD LEARNER´S DICTIONARY, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, or LONGMAN DICTIONARY do not include that meaning. Therefore, I would not dare to use «sheer» to emphasize an adjective. «Sheer» is frequently used to emphasize nouns. In fact, in the book in unit 2 (Relationships) «sheer» is used to emphasize a noun (activity 1, page 16, example 7, «sheer arrogance»). What to do then? Were I in your shoes, I would not use «sheer» with adjectives. Under no circumstances would I take that risk, particularly in an exam. That´s my viewpoint!
Thanks a bunch!!
I´ll try to solve some of those mistakes:
– Difference between hope/expect/wish: I hope these ideas are welcome / I wish you met a man…
– Question structure (e.g. *What parental veto consists on?): What does parental veto consist on?
– Second conditional with inversion (e.g. «Were I to have to participate on websites, I must take into consideration the next recommendations»): Had I to participate on websites…
– Double subject (e.g. *It is crucial an appropriate use of language): An appropiate use of language is crucial
– Comparative (e.g. *the absolutest expert// *clevest): the most absolute expert// the cleverest
Good you try to correct mistakes!
Let´s check:
– Difference between hope/expect/wish: I hope these ideas are welcome / I wish you met a man…
In both cases, I would use «hope». The main difference between «hope» and «wish» lies in the probability or likelihood of a person’s desires coming true. We wish for something when it’s unlikely or impossible to be carried out. We hope for things that are possible and likely to happen or be achieved. Taking into account the context, I am sure the student meant «I hope you meet a man….» (The student considers meeting a man … is possible).
– Question structure (e.g. *What parental veto consists on?): What does parental veto consist on?
Now the structure of the question is good. Just one thing, we say «consist in», not «consist on»
– Second conditional with inversion (e.g. «Were I to have to participate on websites, I must take into consideration the next recommendations»): Had I to participate on websites…
The correction is not good. Grammatically speaking, there is a problem with the second part of the second conditional (I must take into….). The tense is not correct. Apart from that, there is a problem with coherence. What does the student mean when saying «participating on websites»?. That is not a very clear idea. So, please keep trying to correct the grammar mistake at least.
– Double subject (e.g. *It is crucial an appropriate use of language): An appropiate use of language is crucial
This is a possible correction. Another one would be «It is crucial to use/to make use of an appropriate language. Be careful with the spelling of «appropriate», you wrote «appropiate»
– Comparative (e.g. *the absolutest expert// *clevest): the most absolute expert// the cleverest
Correct! just to let you know that «the most clever» is also possible.
By the way, you repeated this mistake «I will try to solve some of those mistakes». We should say «I will try to correct some of the following mistakes. «Solve a mistake» is not possible and «those» (aquellos/esos) is not coherent as «those» do not make reference to the mistakes you are mentioning below, but to mistakes previously mentioned, which is not the case.
Well, regarding to the second conditional with inversion, maybe a correct tense could be «had I to participate/take part in a blog forum» (perhaps this sentence is more appropriate than the first one.
Yeah, more precise! But what is the right tense in the main clause «I must take into consideration… «? Remember both «Were I to have to participate… » and «Had I to participate..» are correct.
Looking forward to your answer!
By the way, «regarding» without «to».
Aaah, there is a mistake, it could be:
«Were I have to participate/had I to participate in a blog forum, I would take into consideration…» The conditional was bad built!
Exact!
Be careful: «Were I to infinitive.. » > Were I to have to participate..» and you wrote «Were I have to…». Apart from that, we say «badly built».
Hi there! As I started classes later and I hadn’t seen on the blog, I’m doing it now. I think the following sentences haven’t been corrected yet so I’d like to participate by trying to correct some of them:
e.g. *Since ancient times, the curricula is being imposed as a part of our culture–> has been imposed
e.g. *Due to you take part on….// …..because of I can find poeple who…..–> take part in something // because I can find people who… or because of people I can find (bacause + clase /because of + noun)
e.g. *people feelings–> people’s feelings *I always have many doubts with this saxon genitive so please Pilar, can you give me a clue?
e.g. *If only the information were been found out, we had saved loads of money in fines -> if only the information had been found out,….
e.g. *There are a great numbers of recommendations// there have been a prickly issue in education//check there is no mistakes -> There is a great number of recommendations // check there is no any mistake
e.g. *We all should be…./e.g. *We always should… –> We should all be/ We should always…
I think it is a really helpful practice as we can all learn from our mistakes. Thanks!
Hello Sandra!
Let´s see your corrections:
e.g. *Due to you take part on….// …..because of I can find poeple who…..–> take part in something // because I can find people who… or because of people I can find (bacause + clause /because of + noun)
Your correction is not good! Both «due to» and «because of» can be followed by a noun or also by a clause. But when «due to» and «because of» are followed by a clause, we need to insert something between «due to/because of» and the clause.
e.g. *There are a great numbers of recommendations// there have been a prickly issue in education//check there is no mistakes -> There is a great number of recommendations // check there is no any mistake
Some corrections are good, other ones are not and other ones were not corrected. Just to let you know that you have not corrected «there have been a prickly issue in education». In addition, your correction of «check there is no mistakes» is not good.
e.g. *If only the information were been found out, we had saved loads of money in fines -> if only the information had been found out,….
Your correction is not finished. What about the main clause?
The rest of mistakes have been well corrected.
By the way, the saxon genitive is used when the possessor is a person or animal, or a country, organisation or other group of living creatures. Apart from that, there is a special use of the genitive with time expressions, for instance, yesterday´s meeting, today´s society. We use the saxon genitive to express possessions, relationships, and physical characteristics. We also use the genitive to talk about things that people, etc. produce (e.g. the girl’s story). or people´s actions (eg. The Queen´s arrival, but also the arrival of the Queen). When the possessor is very long, an of-structure is preferred (eg.the husband of the woman who sent you those papers). The of- structure is preferably used when the possessor is not a person, an animal, a country, or a organisation. However, both structures are possible in some expressions (eg.the earth´s gravity/the gravity of the earth, the plan´s importance/the importance of the plan, the concerto´s final movement/the final movement of the concerto, the train´s arrival/the arrival of the train, the world´s oldest mountains or the the oldest mountains in the world (not «of the world»). Unfortunately, as Michael Swan states, «it is not possible to give useful general rules in this area as the choice of structure often depends on the particular expression».
As you have decided to drop English, maybe I will not get a reply. Anyway, we will see if other students try to correct the mistakes you didn´t correct properly.