Took/takes is prized/was prized

[Rachel Adams]

Is wrong to use "take" instead of "took" in "e" and "was prized" instead of "is prized"?

This exercise is from "English Grammar in Context" by Michael Vince.



I will put the name in italics later when I am at my PC.

 

[teechar]

Is it wrong to use "take" instead of "took" in "e"

Yes, "take" would be wrong, but "takes" can work.

and "was prized" instead of "is prized"?

If you say "was prized", then you'd be implying it does not hold that position now. Since the passage is just presenting general facts, "is prized" makes sense.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes, "take" would be wrong, but "takes" can work.


If you say "was prized", then you'd be implying it does not hold that position now. Since the passage is just presenting general facts, "is prized" makes sense.

I understand "took" to mean the name was changed since then.

 

[teechar]

No. It just explains where the name came from. It does not tell us that the name was subsequently changed.

 

[Rover_KE]

The book title is fine in quotes. Don't put the author's name in italics.

 

[Rachel Adams]

No. It just explains where the name came from. It does not tell us that the name was subsequently changed.

Oh, I misspelled "takes" I was asking if using "took" instead of "takes" is wrong. If native speakers use past simple instead of present simple in such sentence.

 

[teechar]

Oh, I misspelled "takes". I was asking if using "took" instead of "takes" is wrong, and if native speakers use the past simple instead of the present simple in such sentences.

.