[Grammar] gammer

[英语爱好者丁艳]

Give absolute power to any individual or any particular group of people ,and that person or group is sure to abuse that power because ,just as Lord Acton says,"Power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely .




who can help me anlyse this sentence?thank you

 

[bhaisahab]

Give absolute power to any individual or any particular group of people ,and that person or group is sure to abuse that power because ,just as Lord Acton says,"Power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely .




who can help me anlyse this sentence?thank you

Why do you want to analyse it?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I guess the OP wants explanation.

 

[bhaisahab]

I guess the OP wants explanation.

Yes, but for what purpose. Is it homework?

 

[Matthew Wai]

The OP's name translates as "English-lover" followed by her Chinese name, she may just want to learn.

 

[5jj]

The OP's name translates as "English-lover" followed by her Chinese name, she may just want to learn.

Rather than guessing, shall we just wait until 英语爱好者丁艳 answers bhai's question?

 

[英语爱好者丁艳]

Because i think the grammer is wrong ."giving" not "give"

 

[bhaisahab]

Because I think the grammer is wrong."giving" not "give"

No, "give" is correct.

 

[5jj]

Because [STRIKE]i[/STRIKE] I think the [STRIKE] grammer[/STRIKE] grammar is wrong. It should be "giving", not "give"

Please note my corrections to your post, especially the capitalisation of the pronoun 'I', and the spelling of 'grammar'.

 

[Matthew Wai]

No, "give" is correct.

Does "give" mean "if you give" here?

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes and no. If you replace it with "If you give", you would have to change the "and that person or group" clause by removing "and".

 

[Matthew Wai]

Because i think the grammer is wrong ."giving" not "give"

"Giving absolute power to any individual or any particular group of people will cause that person or group to abuse that power."
Is it grammatical?

 

[5jj]

Yes

 

[Tdol]

Yes and no. If you replace it with "If you give", you would have to change the "and that person or group" clause by removing "and".

But yes because that is the meaning.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, that's true, the meaning is the same if the rest of the sentence is changed. If it's not, it leads to an ungrammatical sentence which, by definition, means nothing.

Yes, they mean the same.
No, they're not interchangeable.

I realise the OP didn't ask about interchangeability but many learners seem to think that "means the same" and "interchangeable" are the same thing.