+0
1. "I know diverse grammar questions and expressions." means which one of the following?

A. I know diverse grammar questions and diverse expressions.

B. I know diverse grammar questions and diverse grammar expressions.

C. I know expressions and diverse grammar questions.

2. Regarinng the above question 1, supposing it can mean several things, how can you make what it means clear?

If you want to mean C then, you can use "I know expressions and diverse grammar questions" instead of "I know diverse grammar questions and expressions." by arranging the word order clearly. However, in many case, you should follow the word listing order in this way: "I know diverse grammar questions and expressions." In this case, how can you make it mean "I know (diverse grammar questions) and (expressions)" instead of something else as option "A" or "B" in the above question?

3. A or B can mean several things as follows.

A. either A or B : He is in a literature profession such as a novelist or a poet.

B. A = B : He is a chief or a head of the department. (appositive)

In some case, you cannot depend on common senses or the context, how can you distinguish "or" means "either A or B" or "A=B"?

And, how can you write it clearly without puzzling readers?

4. In a sentence as follows: There was some accident....................... and therefore the layer was required, that is technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation that resulted from the failure of the previous measures taken by the head of the committee.

Is the relative pronoun ", that is" describing "the layer" absolutely wrongly placed?

One way to write it correctly is the layer [that is technologically very complicated.................] was required.

However, I think the [that is ] clause is so long that it may confuse the meaning if it is inserted in the middle of the sentence, so I placed it after "the layer was required." Is this OK?

Or what is a good way to handle this situation?

Thank you very much for your help :-)
1 2
Comments  
Anonymous1. "I know diverse grammar questions and expressions." means which one of the following?

A. I know diverse grammar questions and diverse expressions.

B. I know diverse grammar questions and diverse grammar expressions.

C. I know expressions and diverse grammar questions.

2. Regarinng the above question 1, supposing it can mean several things, how can you make what it means clear?

San Francisco is a city with diverse cultures. This means having a multi-culture environment. The way you used it in the sentence and the sentence itself are rather puzzling, to me anyway. Do you want to mean " many /different"?
Anonymous
4. In a sentence as follows: There was some accident.....(how many?, 1 , 2 ? we can't say "some accident."................. and therefore the layer was required, that is technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation that resulted from the failure of the previous measures taken by the head of the committee.

The problem with passage is that the context is too abstract and too drawn out with lingering clauses. It's hard to help you if we can understand the context.
yes I meant "many different" or "various" by "diverse"
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

As regard Q4. the meaning of the sentence is irrelevant. The point is how to clearly use the relative clause in such a case when the relative clause is very long and you want to avoid using it at front.

zazzex,

If the core context is unclear, the rest means very little whether the relative clauses were placed at the front or at the end. So before concerning yourself with using relative clauses, I suggest that you work the context first. I have no idea what Q4 is all about...

Another suggestion, try not to use more than one relative clause in a single sentence. Sometimes, less is more.
Thank you for your interest, Goodman.

The sentence meaning may be abstract but still seems understandable to the extent to understand the structure of the sentence. And I do not know the specific context either because I took it from some where else and don't know the exact setence but is something similar to that, and I felt this was grammatically wrong.

The layer is a technological layer related to software engineering or network programming concept, I believe.

(As the point is the sentence structure, please let's keep our focus on the sentence structure. Or let's suppose we cannot touch on the meaning and context.)

I realized it was meant to be the following:

"......., and therefore, required was the layer [that was technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation] "

I felt the following was right instead:

"... , and therefore the layer [that was technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation] was required."

But I understand the author's intention because the above sentence is away from the author's focus of meaning as he needed to stress "the layer was required" and later to supplement his explanation by using the very long relative clause.

First, I would like to know if the sentence is grammatically wrong regarding the location of the relative clause .

Next, how should the author have written without compromising his original intention and without using inversion such as "required was the layer", while keeping the sentence grammatically correct?

I can only think of "the layer that is technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation that resulted from the failure of the previous measures taken by the head of the committee was required" to correct the grammar error.

Is there a better option except for "required was the layer that is technologically very complicated ........"?

Thanks.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Hi Zazzex,

Goodman has given you some good advice about Q4, and you yourself seem to have some understanding of its shortcomings.

It's much too long and complicated for the reader to grasp.

In addition, most of us prefer to analyze the grammar of sentences that we can more or less understand in terms of meaning. Grammar is not really just a formulaic kind of exercise.

Often, it's good to discuss grammar in terms of sentences that deal with simple and concrete matters.

How about this one?

Tom bought a car in Paris, that had a dent that showed the car had been in an accident that had been serious.

Does this illustrate the point you were asking about? If not, please try to write one yourself, as simply as possible.

You need to understand the problem before you can understand our comments and suggested solutions.

Best wishes, Clive
Clive
In addition, most of us prefer to analyze the grammar of sentences that we can more or less understand in terms of meaning. Grammar is not really just a formulaic kind of exercise.

Often, it's good to discuss grammar in terms of sentences that deal with simple and concrete matters.

How about this one?

Tom bought a car in Paris, that had a dent that showed the car had been in an accident that had been serious.

Does this illustrate the point you were asking about? If not, please try to write one yourself, as simply as possible.

You need to understand the problem before you can understand our comments and suggested solutions.

Thanks Clive for the insightful comments, and finding my thread constructive. Truly appreciate it.
Hi, Clive

That's why I reduced the long sentence to a clause without a compound relative clause as follows:

"... , and therefore the layer was required [that was technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by the threatening situation]."

Is the above correct?

Or must it be written as follows?

"... , and therefore the layer [that was technologically very complicated but urgently demanded by

the threatening situation] was required."

Or is there another good option?

(For your reference, in academic writings like theses the original long and complicated sentence I mentioned in Q4 are frequently seen.)

"Tom bought a car in Paris, that had a dent that showed the car had been in an accident that had been serious."

This sentence seems perfectly understandable and OK to me. Is there anything wrong?

If there is something wrong, what would that be and how should we correct it?

Thanks
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more