Search results for 'tag:Present simple tag:Commas' matching tags 'Present simple' and 'Commas'

Re: I do exercise on present simple and i need check it .

BeginStudent — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:13:17 GMT

"Yes, if you correct "i" to "I" then either of those sentences are correct. You may want to put a comma after "Several times a week" if it comes at the beginning of a sentence."

I dont understant what you mean in this "if you correct 'i' to 'I' then either ... are the two sentences correct?"

and would you could do other question i did write ...

-- Something else , is it correct to say this sentence:" why is 'very often' in middle of the sentence?"

Is The structure of the sentence is good ?

Thanks . i'm practicing to exam tommorw ... if you answer all question i'll happy .

Re: I do exercise on present simple and i need check it .

Grammar Geek — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:48:48 GMT

Yes, if you correct "i" to "I" then either of those sentences are correct. You may want to put a comma after "Several times a week" if it comes at the beginning of a sentence.

Re: Difference between "Did" and "Have"

WesternAmerican — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:36:26 GMT

Hello Tomer,

Liat's explanation was very clear, I'm convinced that you'll find it neat and easy to comprehend.
If you do feel that you're in need of more help, don't hesitate to post new threads or contact me personally(ICQ: 133465992).
Liat, does the word 'earlier' imply a definite time?

I/You/They/We/She/He/It + didn't + a present simple verb

I didn't eat(not ate)
She didn't drink(not drank)
They didn't look(not looked)

Welcome abroad, ach sheli!

P.S
Liat, thank you very much for your comma-splice explanation, it was fantastic.

Re: tense

Ant_222 — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:39:13 GMT

Hello, here's my try.

Taka wrote:
«...Now such religions sometimes become the reason of conflicts.»

Therefore, the author means existing religions...

I'd say «It was natural that men created religions that...»

EDIT: As to the tenses, I suggest that you use present simple. Since those religions' properties are still actual at the moment of speech.

EDIT2:

Also Taka wrote: «Because I thought that was what religions would do in general, so I used the non-restrictive 'which' (initially I didn't use the comma, though. I thought afterwards that it might be better to use the comma).»

You are not right here. There's a restriction in your original sentence. There, all religions are restricted to only those which teach values different from those of ordinary people. Thus, this is a restriction.

Re: "neither would be..." ?

taiwandave — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:59:39 GMT

Hello, Jessica.

You correctly flagged this sentence as being incorrect:

1. If the mother is not happy, neither would be the child.

The problem with [1] is tense agreement on either side of the comma. The "if" clause is using the present simple, but the "neither" clause uses the past tense of the modal verb "will". It should be:

2. If the mother is not happy, neither will be the child.

Compare:

3. If he goes, I will stay home.
4. If he goes, I would stay home.

[4] is correct only if the speaker is giving advice to someone else (in other words, "If I were you, I would stay home if he goes"). In [2] and [3] the speaker is simply stating that if A is true, B is also true. Hence the use of "will", not "would".

The simplest way of making this point is, as you suggested:

5. If the mother is not happy, the child will not be happy.

Other variants:

6. An unhappy mother means an unhappy child.
7. If the mother is unhappy, so will be the child.

The most concise is at only seven words.