Does This Sentence Make Grammatical Sense

Is this sentence grammatically correct "It doesn't make sense to you, probably."?

It’s not correct, and it doesn’ make any sense in this context. Proper form would be “It probably doesn’t make sense to you”, but since you already know it doesn’t, that has no meaning here, sarcastic or otherwise.Sarcasm is when you say what you *don’t* mean, and subtle tone of voice communicates that you don’t mean it. The form is rife with pitfalls and even in the best case scenario can be taken as insulting. If your tone of voice isn’t perfect for the job, or if the listener is just someone who doesn’t “get” sarcasm—as many, many people don’t—it’s gonna fall flat. And since there is a legitimate insult at the heart of such a starement, it can make for hurt feelings and a strained relationship.i’m gonna put this in caps because it’s so important: IF YOU HAVE TO ASK ON QUORA HOW TO USE SARCASM, YOU SHOULDN’t BE USING SARCASM.For someone who *does* have experience with sarcasm, the proper rejoinder would be, “And here I thought you were smart enough to understand everything, “. Though why on earth you would be nasty to someone who just told you he didn’t understand something is beyond me.

Does the following sentence make sense grammatically: “In this regard, in order to prevent the creation of such ambiguities by the readers, we have added some parts to the text”?

You’ve asked if this sentence makes sense grammatically, but sense and grammar are two different things.Noam Chomsky’s famous sentence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” demonstrates that a sentence can be grammatically perfect without making a whole lot of sense.Like Chomsky’s sentence, your sentence is fine, grammatically. Pay no attention to the respondents who say it’s not grammatically correct — they’re wrong.In terms of semantics (or meaning), it’s also fine. The folks who say your sentence doesn’t make sense because “writers, not readers, create ambiguities” don’t understand how reading works (and they are refuting themselves because they, not you, are creating ambiguities by interpreting your sentence in different ways!). Readers bring just as much, if not more, meaning to a piece of writing than the writer. A text’s meaning isn’t just lying about on the page, waiting to be revealed or decoded — the making of meaning arises from the interaction (the negotiation, the exchange of interpretive guesses) of a reader with a text.Because your sentence appears out of context, we don’t know everything we need to know to fully understand its meaning, but if we call it nonsensical for that reason alone, we’d have to judge almost all sentences nonsensical because I’m not sure that we ever encounter sentences in absolute contextual completeness.So, to answer your question:Your sentence is grammatically correct.Your sentence makes sense, but because of its semantic properties, not because of its grammatical correctness.

What are good examples of sentences that make grammatical sense and use words that have meaning in two languages?

Oy vey - (Yiddish)meaning ‘oh, woe!’, a common shortening of the phrase “oy vey ist mir”Oi vei - (Portuguese, Brasilia slang)meaning ‘hey dude’, used colloquiallyMy family is partially Ukrainia, so I grew up using the first one and was told the second one from an old ex from college who was Brazilian. I'm not sure how common the slang is as a phrase but I was able to verify the individual words as correct.I love linguistic quirks like this, so it stuck with me till now.

Writing advice: Does this sentence grammatically make sense?

To best resolve your issue, perhaps ask a slightly different question, such as: "Does the sentence makes sense?".Your sentence: "My sense of time was long diminished to nothing", is incorrect. Here's why:To diminish something, we reduce, weaken, or shorten its measure or intensity.The first part of your sentence: "My sense of time was long diminished ..." while perhaps not ideal, does make sense.For me, the second part of your sentence: "... to nothing", is what creates a problem when integrated with the first part of your full sentence.Why? A sense of time can become diminished or "long diminished", but when diminished to nothing, arguably, the word diminished loses its meaning in context, even though it may still be grammatically valid."Diminished to nothing" just doesn't seem to sound valid. Sometimes, ambiguous words like "diminished" can cause problems.Sentences can be grammatically correct, yet still sound "wrong" as read them today. Perhaps your sentence is one of those. Nevertheless, if you still like to use "diminished", some suitable alternatives could include:"My sense of time diminished to nothing". Or ..."My sense of time, clouded and confused ...". Or ..."My sense of time, at first much diminished, soon evaporated - to nothing. I felt cast adrift ..."And so on.For precise wording, what might work best depends on what your excerpt is about: fiction, non-fiction, etc. Enjoy the challenge.

Does this sentence make sense grammatically, "A cat slinked along the street footpath toward to the corner of a garden fence, pausing in an adjacent triangle of warm morning light contrived by its shadow, as if to meditate upon its dimensions"?

"A cat slinked along the street footpath toward to the corner of a garden fence, pausing in an adjacent triangle of warm morning light contrived by its shadow, as if to meditate upon its dimensions"Grammatically it’s almost right. “toward to” is redundant and wrong. Drop the “to” (or the “toward”) and it would be grammatical.The past tense of slink is slunk, but it’s obscure enough that I’d let it be for the poetic effect; slinked is elegant but slunk isn’t.(ref: slink | Definition of slink in English by Oxford Dictionaries)I disagree with the other answers; it is the triangle that is contrived by the shape of the fence, not the light. While the root usage of “contrive” is to create with skill, that is not the only way it is used. See the second clause in contrive | Definition of contrive in English by Oxford Dictionaries. While that doesn’t quite match according to the definition, I feel that is opens the door to your usage, at least in poetic form, which might be defined as create by accident of circumstance.

Does this sentence make any sense if you check the grammar: "What does he does?"

One thing that is confusing about this sentence is that it uses the same verb do with two different meanings.One correct way to say this is: What does he do?In this case, the last word do has the meaning of employment, as if the sentence continued with the words for work, so an answer could be: He does car repair. This has the same meaning as: He repairs cars.The second word does is a form of the helper verb do that is used most often to construct questions and negative statements. So in the question form above, any other verb can follow he as long as it makes sense and uses the infinitive form of the verb. Examples: What does he mean? What does he recommend? So if you want to know how he is employed, you ask: What does he do?This is one of the few English grammar rules that has no exceptions (that is, until someone contradicts me with a grammatical and idiomatic example but I think I am safe):in a question formed with an interrogative adverb (like What) followed by does (for singular) or do (for plural), then a subject (like he) and a verb (like do or any of the examples above), the form of the verb will always be the infinitive, and that means no added -ed, -ing, -s or -es, so recommend not recommended, mean not meaning, and do not does.Another correct way to say this (prepare for confusion) is: What is it that he does? The rule above does not apply because do is not used as a helper verb.In this case, does has the same meaning of employment, but it is in a subordinate clause started with that, so the rule changes to the rules for subordinate clauses. Treat it like any other non-helper verb here, just like: What is it that he recommends?