Are these 2 sentences correct in a written narrative?
Yes.A̶l̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶,̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶'̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶g̶a̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶e̶d̶'̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶.̶It is fine as it is. Thanks Audun Bie!
Have you wrote the exam? is this sentence correct?
No, it's "Have you written the exam"? As others have said, the specific idiomatic usage here is that a teacher WRITES an exam (i.e., creates it), while students TAKE or COMPLETE an exam. Why "written" and not "wrote"? Well, the specific verb tense construction used here is the present perfect, which describes an action completed at one finite point in the past: I have eaten that sandwich. I have seen the exam. I have taken the ring to Mordor. As you can see, the basal form of the verb used here is the passive participle (eaten, seen, taken), NOT the simple past (ate, saw, took). For some verbs, these two are the same thing, but for most English verbs, it's different. The past participle is actually an ADJECTIVE, and can be used to describe nouns: The eaten sandwich burbled in my stomach. The seen exam was thrown out. The taken ring was sorely missed by Sauron. The simple past, on the other hand, is pretty much always a verb, and so can't describe nouns.
Are these 2 consecutive sentences correct and well written?
They both look grammatically correct to me.It's out of context with what other words surround it, but standing alone, it would provide greater clarity, if you described what 'it' was.
Are these sentences well written?
I am afraid that you are creating more confusion to those whom read this than anything else. It is all to complicated to read and than understand, next. People would get lost in these sentences and sure to give up reading them, quickly. An example is the second sentence: How does day turn to night. People would read this and know that this is an impossible thing to happen. In their own minds this is an impossible act. Sentences need to be able to be read and understood by those reading them, right away. Would you talk this way to people you know? That is the key to writing. It is suppose to be like a conversation with others. In these sentences the ideas maybe present in your mind,but, you need to let others know what they are. Put them in words,as sentences, which others can understand as though you are talking to them in person.
Which sentence is correct, "I can't hear as well as I should", "I can't hear as well as I should do", or "I can't hear as well as I should be able to"?
I've been a professional writer for over 20 years, mostly in the tech industry, and so my bias is crafting spare, precise sentences. With that in mind, here's my take. The most natural is the first one. It's the concise version of the third one. The second one is a bit awkward to my ear, but I wouldn't call it wrong. However, I'd would almost always avoid that second construction.
What is the correct grammar for the sentence, “didn't do well on box office as well”?
The question was - What is the correct grammar for the sentence, “didn't do well on box office as well”?Since the question I am reading is only a sentence fragment, I have to guess. I would phrase it this way, assuming the following lead in wording:“This movie earned poor reviews in preview and didn’t do well at the box office either.”I hope that guess is close enough to help. The key is the usual phrase is ‘at the box office.’ I have never heard ‘on’ used.Thanks for the A2A.
Can someone please use the word lechery in a well written sentence?
When thinking of lechery, one can look towards Hugh Hefner as an iconic example.
Writing Advice: Are these consecutive sentences correct?
Both sentences are grammatically correct. But if you are writing a narrative, they do not work well together, and may confuse the reader.You have two consecutive sentences in the same paragraph. The construction is a quotation, followed by a phrase identifying the speaker to end the sentence, then another quoted sentence. Normally a construction like this represents two sentences that make up a single utterance, broken up by the identifying phrase simply for the sake of the rhythm of the written language. That is, as the reader interprets the passage, the utterance they hear in their head is two contradictory statements: "He's dead. "He's alive."The confusion is not cleared up until the end of the passage, when Donald's name is mentioned. Even then, comprehension may be slowed because the second name begins with "D," just like the first one mentioned.If you want to make the passage read more smoothly, you might consider adding a sentence in between these two to indicate the transition (something like "He turned to Donald") or recasting the second sentence to bring Donald's name to the beginning.