Hello,
I’ve just read the article on spelling problems from the BBC, and I’ve got two questions. Have a look, please.
1. Three-quarters of employers would be put off a job candidate by poor spelling or grammar, a survey suggests.
I think it should be either would-be-employers (or employers-would-be?) or
Three-quarters of employers would put off a job candidate by poor spelling or grammar, a survey suggests.Is it a misprint?
2. …I send the CVs back with the major flaws highlighted, and never invite the senders for interview …
Why no article before interview?
Could anyone please clarify that for me?
TIA
Originally Posted by Humble
I`ll answer the second question :
It is correct to say "for interview" because the term is general ; no specific reference to the word "interview".
If you say " for the interview" it means a specific interview :
e.g. :".......and never invite the senders for the interview which will be next week.
Regards,
If you had poor spelling , employers would be put off
This is what the sentence is saying ------ In grammar books often called a 2nd conditional.
I have another guess:
Three-quarters of employers would be put off by a job candidate’s poor spelling or grammar, a survey suggests.
Well, the interview is out of the question, Teia, but why not an interview?
Tnx
Hi,Interview is a variable noun which means it can be countable or uncountable and can be used with or without an article in the singular form. With no article you can think of the noun in a general way .With an article you can think of the noun as an individual example of the noun. In your sentence you coud use either an interview or interview .
Another example ----- I like salad ( in general )
I will have a salad for lunch ( an individual example)
I hope this helps
Tnx, Teia,Tom and Davy.
I am amazed no one commented on
Three-quarters of employers would be put off a job candidate by poor spelling or grammar, a survey suggests
I can’t make head or tail in its grammar. Can you? Do you really think it is a normal sentence?
TNX
Tnx, Davy, for your patience.
Still I don't understand. OK, let's see it. I found an example in my dictionary:
Don't be put off by his appearance, he's actually quite a charming person.
Similarly, "the employers would be put off" - it's the Passive, right? Then, how can possibly an indirect object follow witout any preposition?
put off smb, sth
be put off by smb, sth
Right?
I wish tdol or MrPedantic would give their judgement, too.
Regards
You can be " put off something " If you`re not sure , you can find an example in any good English dictionary. Don`t forget English is not a collection of grammar rules.