adding ed

[Tdol]

The second means you want to get into a good position to take the photo or kill. The first doesn't work for me.;-)

 

[Casiopea]

"Let me get a clear shoot of him."
"Let me get a clear shot of him."
Can you explain to me again about what is the difference in meaning between the two?

Try this,

1. Let me get a clear shot of him.

Question: Get a clear what of him?
Answer: A clear shot of him.

"what" replaces nouns. The phrase "a clear shot" is a noun phrase, made up of an article "a", an adjective "clear" and a noun "shot"; "shot" is a noun, a thing. It looks like the past tense verb "shot" (e.g. I shot him), but it's not a verb in sentence 1. We know this because it is modified by an article and an adjective.

2. Let me get a clear shoot of him.

"shoot" is a verb, a present tense verb. Sentence 2. is ungrammatical becuase, a verb cannot be modified by an article or an adjective:

a clear shoot (Article+Adjective+Verb) (Not OK)
a clear shot (Article+Adjective+Noun) (OK; big thumbs up!)

All the best,

 

[jack]

thanks, that really cleared things up.

For my resume is this okay?:
-troubleshooted serves and tested network cards for defects

 

[Casiopea]

thanks, that really cleared things up.

For my resume is this okay?:
-troubleshooted servers and tested network cards for defects

The verb 'troubleshooted' is fine. It's derived from a compound: trouble+shoot, so 'shoot' doesn't follow its regular pattern of inflection (i.e. shoot (Present vb.), shot (Past vb.)). It takes -ed: troubleshoot (Present), troubleshooted (Past).

All the best,

 

[Tdol]

There also seems to be a rule that new verbs are regular. ;-)

 

[jack]

"At that time he is elected to be a Conservative." <--correct? why?and what does the sentence mean?
"At that time he was elected be a Conservative." <--correct? why?and what does the sentence mean?

Lets say i am doing a presentation and the teacher want us to use present tense, i would use the first one right?



"I have experienced that before." <--correct? why? what does it mean?
"I have experience that before." <--correct? why? what does it mean?
"I have undergone that before." why isn't "undergone" undergoned??
Like why doesn't this rule work with the sentence above?
Have + past participle ?





"Pual remarries a clever wife named Denyse." <--why is named correct? why isnt it name? If i use name, what would the sentence mean?
"Pual remarries a clever wife name Denyse." <--why is this incorrect? Isn't the sentence talking in present tense? why is "named" correct?

[/b]

 

[Tdol]

"At that time he is elected to be a Conservative." <--correct? why?and what does the sentence mean?
I'd say this is incorrect- it should be 'this time' ;-)

 

[Casiopea]

A sad face means, incorrect. A happy face means, correct.


1. At that time he is elected to be a Conservative.
==>'that' refers to the past--a location in time far from the speaker. "is" refers to the present.

2. At that time he was elected be a Conservative."
==> Both 'that' and 'was' refer to the past.

3. I have experienced that before.
==> 'have experienced', a present prefect verb form, does not express when in the past the event (experience) happened. Use the present perfect when you want to place 100% focus on the event; Use the simple past (i.e. I experienced that before), when you want to place 50% focus on when it happened and 50% focus on the event.

4. I have experience that before.
==> The verb 'experience' needs '-ed' because it is part of a present perfect verb: 'have -ed/-en'.

5. I have undergone that before.
==> The verb 'undergone' doesn't take the past marker -ed because it already has a past form: undergo (present), underwent (past), undergone (past participle). 'have undergone' is the perfect form of the verb "undergo".

6. Pual remarries a clever wife named Denyse.
==> The word 'named' is an adjective. "remarries" is the verb. There can only be one verb per sentence in English.

Paul (Subject)
remarries (Verb)
a clever wife (Object)
named Denyse (Object Complement; function: describes the noun 'wife')

All the best,

 

[jack]

thannnnnnnnnnnnnks.

 

[jack]

"I am dead." <-- why is this correct?
"I am die." <--why is this wrong?

"I am scheduled for tommorow." <-- why is this correct?
"I am schedule for tommorow." <--is this wrong? why?

 

[Casiopea]

"I am dead." <-- why is this correct?
"I am die." <--why is this wrong?

"I am scheduled for tommorow." <-- why is this correct?
"I am schedule for tommorow." <--is this wrong? why?

1. I am dead.
=> Adjective in form; Adverb in function; 'dead' describes the state of the Subject.

2. I am die.
Verb; There can only be one main verb in a sentence. Both 'am' and 'die' function as main verbs.

3. I am scheduled.
Passive verb form: BE + -ed participle (am + scheduled).
Active verb form: "Someone scheduled me for tomorrow."

4. I am schedule.
Without -ed, 'schedule' functions as a main verb; with -ed, 'scheduled' functions as a participle.)

All the best,

 

[jack]

"I heard a teacher say that once." <--correct? what does it mean?
"I heard a teacher said that once." <---correct? what does it mean?

 

[Casiopea]

1. I heard a teacher say that once.
==> a general fact.

2. I heard a teacher said that once.
==> I heard that a teacher had said that once.

 

[jack]

John became a writer. <--what does this sentence mean?
John become a writer. <--incorrect? why? what does it mean?
John becomes a writer. <--what does it mean??

 

[Tdol]

John became a writer. <--what does this sentence mean?
It means that at some stage in the past he changed from not being a writer to being one.

John become a writer. <--incorrect? why? what does it mean?

This is ungrammatical- the third person singular (he\she\it) should have 's' on the end.

John becomes a writer. <--what does it mean??
This is grammatical, but doesn't make much sense as the usual use is for a habit, and becoming a writer is a single action, not a habit. However, it could be used when describing the plot of a film or book- John leaves university, gets a job with a newspaper, then becomes a writer...
;-)

 

[jack]

He is killed. <---kill have ed?
He is okay. <--okay doesn't have "ed" (okayed)? why? how do you know?

 

[Casiopea]

He is killed. <---kill have ed?
He is okay. <--okay doesn't have "ed" (okayed)? why? how do you know?

Well, for one thing, the word 'killed' is not an adjective by nature; it's a participle, which means it's derived from a verb (i.e. kill => killed), so placing it after a linking verb (i.e. 'is') doesn't work. Secondly, 'killed' is a Past participle. Note the -ed ending. -ed refers to the Past, which makes it incompatible with 'is'. That is, 'is' expresses the Present, whereas 'killed' expresses the Past,

He is killed. (Present: 'is', Past: 'killed')
He was killed. (Past: 'was', 'killed')

As for 'He is okay', the word 'okay' it a true adjective. Adjectives don't take -ed. Verbs, on the other hand, do, like this,

kill (Verb) => add -ed => killed (Participle adjective)

"He was killed" is a passive sentence. The active structure is as follows,

Someone killed him. (Active)
He was killed by someone. (Passive)

All the best,

 

[jack]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never use this before." <-- correct? why? what does this sentence mean?

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never used this before." <--correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "use" becomes "used"?


"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they have never used this before." <--correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "have" is added?

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they had never used this before." <-- correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "had" is added?

How do i know which one to use? have or had?

 

[Tdol]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never use this before." <-- correct? why? what does this sentence mean?

This isn't correct. I'd say 'It is unlikely that they would do something like this because they have never used this before.'


Now, what do you understand by that? ;-)

 

[jack]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never used this before." <--so this one is saying that he never used this in the past but who's know if he/she has used this now?