Which of these sentences is incorrect?
the sanctimoniousness of the indian leader mahatma gandhi won him the profound respect of both hindus and muslims. although he himself evaded taxes, he sanctimoniously accused those who voted against tax increases of lacking public spirit. which one uses the form of sanctimonious incorrectly?
Can you tell me why these sentences are incorrect ?
1- Jason's mother left himself with nothing to eat. 2-Myriam is eager to talk to. 3-This is the man who I took a picture of. 4-Colin made Jane a sandwich. 5-Is the dog sleeping the bone again? 6-Wayne prepared Zena a cake. 7-Max cleaned the garden up. 8-Max cleaned up it. 9-I desire you to leave. 10-That you like liver surprises me.
Which one of these sentence is correct, "That's what I call as a perfect shot" or "That's what I call a perfect shot?"
After ( call, consider, elect, select, name, make,etc. ( As) is not used.Eg. 1. I called him mahatma.2. My parents named me Hema.3. They elected her a leader.4. I consider you my teacher.5. They made him a leader.6. The students selected Prakash a leader.
Which of these sentences is correct / wrong and why?
Number 3 is correct. The question asked how the assembly language was created, which requires the verb "to create" to be phrased in the third person singular, past tense, passive voice. This tense and voice is composed of the third person singular form of "to be," which is "was," and the past participle of "to create," which is "created." Thus, the correct form is "was created," which in question form splits the verb, with the helping verb before the subject: How was the assembly language created? Here the emphasis is on "created." Another way to ask the question would be, "The assembly language was created how?" placing emphasis on "how." This phrasing would be appropriate if the speaker were exclaiming surprise at some aspect of the creation of the assembly language.I hope this helps, and thanks for asking!
In which of these sentences is the punctuation incorrect?
A I prefer my eggs scrambled, poached , or sunny side up B my brother, who works for the goverment,was just promoted C well we should get started on our project D listen,oh listen, to the song of the lark
Which one of these sentences is grammatically correct?
The first sentence is right.I would like to make a point about the usage of the word 'who'. Since 'duo' is a word for a group of people, it is not in itself a human being, and will be treated like a non-human noun. You must use 'that' in place of 'who'. Now about whether it should be treated as singular or plural. The fact is that like all collective nouns, 'duo' can take the singular or plural form depending on whether the action being performed by the duo is done collectively or not.E.g. The duo lives in Melbourne.The duo live apart in different cities.In the example you quoted, since both members of the duo are living and working in the same city, the right sentence is:We're an Australian duo that lives and works in Melbourne. ORWe're an Australian duo that is living and working in Melbourne.Clearly, sentence 1 from among the options you mentioned is a contraction of this last sentence, and therefore the better option.
Which sentence is incorrect: “Who’s going to the party tonight?”, “Who’s books do these belong to?”, “Whose clothes are there?”, or “Can you tell me who's got my jacket?”
“Who’s books do these belong to” is incorrect. “Who’s” is a contraction of “who is” or perhaps “who has”. Neither are correct in this sentence. “Whose” implies possession, the proper wording. Also, the sentence ends in a “dangling preposition” that while quite common in use, is a grammatical “no no”. “To whom do these books belong?” would be a grammatically correct way to ask the question.
How are these sentences grammatically incorrect?
For the first: We discovered that those kindS of form letters do not get results. OR We discovered that THAT kind of form letter does not get results. The modifier and the noun must agree in number - so it should be either plural those with plural kinds. or singular that with singular kind. Either one could be correct, depending on the antecedents. For the second: Did you see the picture of President Bush and ME in Newsweek? The '-self' forms are reflexive or intensive. They must be used only when there is an antecedent earlier in the sentence.
Is one of these sentences grammatically incorrect, "It has got better" and "It has gotten better"?
Sometimes, language groups that split off (like Americans from British) retain older forms of the language. People in Normandy still use expressions that now sound odd to Parisians; Quebecois use expressions and vocabulary which Parisians have not used for a century; and Americans likewise use English which has long ago ceased to be used in England.The original past participle of the verb to get used to be gotten (like forget becomes forgotten, and write becomes written). You will find it in Shakespeare, and in the King James’ Bible. By 1795 in England, however, almost everyone was using got, and gotten was declared obsolete. The old past participle had also lost a great deal of ground in America; however, by the end of the 19th century, it started to gain traction again. Now, gotten is back as an accepted term.Canadians (eastern Canadians, anyway) also tend to use the historical past participle. (My guess is that it came to Canada with the Scots, who still use the old participle.)When I taught English in England, I was reprimanded by the headmistress for using gotten in a discussion with her. That form of the verb is obsolete, she told me. Got is a perfectly good past participle; gotten is unnecessary and should be forgotten.I went back to my digs to think about what she had said. Then I came back to her. There is a distinction, I said, an important one. When she asked me to explain, I gave two sentences:“I have got to love him.”“I have gotten to love him.”One expresses obligation; the other, result. And that is why we need to retain the old participle.Meanwhile, use “gotten” in America, and “got” in England.