Grammar

[hoang21anh]

Hi everyone,

I have a few questions that I need you to help me.

1/ Which word or phrase (in brackets) here needs correcting? And please explain why.
(Until) recently, I (have trusted) Jim (with) the (most difficult) jobs of the company.

2/ The river is polluted ... aluminum.
In the gap, should I use "by" or "with". What's the difference between using polluted by and polluted with?

Thank you in advance

 

[luschen]

Hi everyone,

I have a few questions that I need you to help me.

1/ Which word or phrase (in brackets) here needs correcting? And please explain why.
(Until) recently, I (have trusted) Jim (with) the (most difficult) jobs of the company.

This sounds correct to me, although I would say "jobs in the company"

2/ The river is polluted ... aluminum.
In the gap, should I use "by" or "with". What's the difference between using polluted by and polluted with?

Thank you in advance

I would use "with". By would state who polluted the river - "The river was polluted by the chemical plants."

*** Not a teacher ***

 

[hoang21anh]

Thank Luschen for your help

1/ The first question still need an answer.

2/ Chemical plants is somehow sounds like an object, not "who" :-? Anyway, I still want to understand more clearly about the difference between using them.

 

[eddy143]

more hint on the second question.
Here, "by" will be the person who did it and "with" will be the object used by the person to pollute it.
e.g 1-The river was polluted by Aluminum.(Aluminum here is considered a name of somebody.
2-The river was polluted with aluminum.(aluminum here is considered as a material or chemical waste.

 

[Raymott]

more hint on the second question.
Here, "by" will be the person who did it and "with" will be the object used by the person to pollute it.
e.g 1-The river was polluted by Aluminum.(Aluminum here is considered a name of somebody.
2-The river was polluted with aluminum.(aluminum here is considered as a material or chemical waste.

Yes, but only because you've capitalised the name.
The meaning of "The river was polluted by aluminum" would be quite obvious to a native speaker, and it would mean the same as "with aluminium" - unless the speaker wanted to make a distinction between who did it and what they did it with.)

 

[Raymott]

Hi everyone,

I have a few questions that I need you to help me.

1/ Which word or phrase (in brackets) here needs correcting? And please explain why.
(Until) recently, I (have trusted) Jim (with) the (most difficult) jobs of the company.

No doubt the answer is that "have trusted" should be "trusted". Because you've already stopped doing it, the action is not extending up to the present, and the simple past tense is appropriate.

Even so, "have trusted" is acceptable here.