The compound sentence below is incorrect because the verbs used are in different tense. Is this a "subject-verb agreement error", "parallelism error" or other?
It was his duty; therefore, he has to fix the problem.
In the example below, the text preceeding the compound sentence drives the need to make both verbs (of the compound sentence) past or present tense, but it did not occur.
The gentleman's responsibility is to repair vehicles. Because it was his duty, he has to fix the car.
Is that error called, "subject-verb agreement", "parallelism error" or something else?
As you have already been clearly informed, there is NO error of grammar here!
However, being incorrect in grammar means being under no circuimstance acceptable.
Nobody went to the shop to buy some bread and so we are short of it now. It was his duty; therefore, he has to fix the problem.
P.S. Thanks philo for your confirmation.
Svartnik is right, but it would be an error if the reality it is attempting to paint is that the duty and problem are contemporaneous. Here is the opposite case, when the duty and problem are asynchronous.
For example: (Writing 1 month after Clinton took power): It was G. Bush 41's duty to manage US security in the mid-east. Because of this, he has to fix the errors he made (now).
My professor insists that there is a "subject-verb agreement" error.
Thanks to all of you for the clarification.
parallelism error? Does this sentence branch off anywhere?
The only problem there could be with the sentence, in my opinion, is the inconsequent choice of tenses.
Raymott, I want to ask you a question. May I?
Let us put another schrimp on the barbie.
I know the straightforward translation, but what I do not know is why Jim Carrey said that to someone once he thought was from down-under to hit a fraternal note with her. What exactly did he mean?
And one more q:
'down under', is it pejorative? 'Down' suggest not up, but then I often hear it.