+0

Hi,

Could you please comment these sentences for me?


I have been [ remiss / negligent ] my duty. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

Heavy [ reliance / dependency ] on just one client is not a idea for any business. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

We should get rid of heavy [ reliance / dependency ] on Panadol. (Both words are correct and equally common?)


Do you think Americans using Panadol a lot?

Do you think that American use Panadol a lot? (Technically that acts two clauses but we usually ignore it therefore next one is also correct?)

Do you think Americans (that) use Panadol a lot? (Correct as an optional?)


Cheers

John Aki

1 2
Comments  

Typo, the last was supposed to be


Do you think (that) Americans use Panadol a lot? (Correct as an optional?)


Cheers

After though, myself corrections


I have been [ remiss / negligent ] my duty. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

Heavy [ reliance / dependence ] on just one client is not a idea for any business. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

We should get rid of heavy [ reliance / dependence ] on Panadol. (Both words are correct and equally common?)


Do you think Americans using Panadol a lot? (Most proper grammar from text books)

Do you think that American use Panadol a lot? (Technically "that" acts to separate two clauses but we tend to ignore it)

Do you think (that) Americans use Panadol a lot? ("that" has been become an optional since...)


Thanks again in advance

John Aki

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
John AkiAfter though, myself corrections
Here are my corrections.
John AkiI have been [ remiss / negligent ] in my duty. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

'negligent' is used more often.

John AkiHeavy [ reliance / dependence ] on just one client is not a good idea for any business. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

'dependence' is a little more common. 'dependence' also suggests a closer tie to something, a client in this case.

John AkiWe should get rid of heavy [ reliance / dependence ] on Panadol. (Both words are correct and equally common?)

As stated above. If you rely on a medication to relieve your pain, it's because you trust it to relieve your pain. You firmly believe that it is effective. If you depend on it, it's because you can't stop using it, or nearly so. Drug dependence is probably the step before drug addiction. (But I'm not a doctor, so these are just my personal thoughts about how the words are used.)

John AkiDo you think [Americans using Panadol a lot]? (Most proper grammar from text books) No, no, no. You won't find this in a textbook.

The clause in brackets has only the -ing form of a verb (using). That's not possible after "Do you think (that)".

You need either 'use', which is the simple present tense, or you need to add an auxiliary verb (are):

Do you think (that) Americans use Panadol a lot? OK.
Do you think (that) Americans are using Panadol a lot? OK.

John AkiDo you think that American use Panadol a lot?

'that' is optional. I put it in parentheses, as I did above, when I want you to know that it is optional. But we do not write it in parentheses when using it in writing. You must write it with "that" or without "that", but never with "(that)" except in discussions of grammar, to show that it is optional.

It is never wrong to keep optional "that" in a sentence. "that" is optional after introductory clauses with 'think', 'believe', 'know', 'say', 'find', 'see', and many others.

I think that ...; Do you believe that ...; Jeff knows that ...; They said that ...; We found that ...; I see that ....

CJ

Thanks Mr CJ,


I think that you [ do / are doing ] a good job. (Either one is correct as you taught)

I think, you [ do / are doing ] a good job. (A comma for a conjunction, could this be correct?)

I saw that it use in... (A plain form as you taught)

I saw that it used in... (This is Incorrect?)


Also do these grammar make sense to you please advise?

I am liable (responsible) for any damage caused. (this is passive voice?)

What price did you end up selling for? (This is active voice?)

What price did you end up sold for? (this is passive voice?)


Thanks again in advance

John Aki

John AkiI think that you [ do / are doing ] a good job. (Either one is correct as you taught)

Correct. Both are correct, and you use them in different situations like this:
"do" for when you always do a good job whenever you do a job.
"are doing" for when you are doing a good job on the the job that you are doing now, as I say this.

John AkiI think, you [ do / are doing ] a good job. (A comma for a conjunction, could this be correct? No!)

No. We neverput a comma in place of 'that'. Emotion: shake

John Aki

I saw that it use in... I saw that you used it in ... (A plain form as you taught)

I saw that it used in... Same. I saw that you used it in ... (This is Incorrect?)

Here you have to match tenses.

Present tense: see; use; is using, are using
Past tense: saw; used; was using, were using

Active of "use"

I seepresent that you usepresent a knife to cut the bread.
I sawpast that you usedpast a knife to cut the bread.
I see that you arepresent using a knife to cut the bread.
I saw that you werepast using a knife to cut the bread.

Passive of "use"

I see that the knife is used to cut the bread.
I saw that the knife was used to cut the bread.
I see that the knife is being used to cut the bread.
I see that the knife was being used to cut the bread.

Don't worry so much about the passive for now. It's too complicated, and it's not used as much.

You have to get clear on the tenses in the active voice. You've learned too many different forms now, and I think you have got them all in a jumble in your head. It's time to slow down and master the basics.


Also, note that "see" is an unfortunate choice to practice on because it also participates in a special construction as a "catenative verb", which is a construction that looks a lot like the construction with 'that', but it's actually completely different.

These never have 'that'. It is not even implied, as when you omit it in a 'that' construction. And the forms that are allowed are different.

I see you cut the bread.
I saw you cut the bread.
I see you cutting the bread.
I saw you cutting the bread.

The rules for catenative constructions are completely different from the rules for constructions with 'that', and that can be very confusing for you if you have not mastered the forms of the verbs and their tenses. You may have to look online for websites that cover the basics.

CJ

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
John AkiI am liable (responsible) for any damage caused. (this is passive voice?)

'caused' is not passive voice. When we use a past participle ('caused') without an auxiliary verb (is caused; was caused; has been caused; etc.), we don't call it passive voice.

However, it is passive in meaning. The connecting words have been omitted.

I am liable for any damage which is caused.

John AkiWhat price did you end up selling it for? (This is active voice?)

Active meaning, not really active voice. (There is no auxiliary verb like 'is' or 'was'.) "end up" is a catenative verb, so this is another catenative construction like the one I talked about in the previous post ('see').

John AkiWhat price did you it end up sold for? (this is passive voice?)

A person (I, you, he, she, ...) sells things. Things (it, them) are sold.

Passive meaning, not really passive voice. (Again, no passive auxiliary verb.)

CJ

Thank you Mr CJ,

We really appreciated your time, you have cleared many mysteries on these grammar issues for all of us. These abbreviations (the connecting words have been omitted) are really killing us, without understanding them properly none of these sentences are making senses in the grammar constructions.


I am liable for any damage (which is) caused.

What price did it end up (which was) sold for?

I think (that) you (are) reliable.

You rescued many people (which were) trapped inside the fallen building.

No signature (is) required.

No appointment (is) needed.


BTW for these "catenative verbs"

I saw you did that last night. (Whole event)

I saw you doing that last night. (At that moment)

I see you [ do / doing ] that all the time.

I saw you do that last night. (Could this sentences make sense to you? theoretically it probably doesn't match tenses, but it's a catenative verb as rules might be a bit different, please advise?)


Thanks again in advance

John Aki

John AkiThese abbreviations (the connecting words have been omitted) are really killing us

I can believe it. They are sometimes difficult to interpret.

John AkiI am liable for any damage (which is) caused.

Correct. But remember that this (which is) caused is a modifier of damage, a noun, so this has nothing to do with catenative verb patterns (or any other verb patterns).

John AkiWhat price did it end up (which was) sold for?

This phrase sold for is part of a catenative verb pattern because end up is a catenative verb, so which was is not involved. You can even have

What price did it end up being sold for?

The corresponding statement for that is

It ended up being sold for a good price.

These forms are perhaps more commonly used.

John AkiI think (that) you (are) reliable.

This looks like your analysis of the sentence I think you reliable, but you won't hear it much, maybe not at all. More likely, I consider you reliable. Very few sentences have this pattern. To learn more about the details of this construction, see my post at difference between "consider" and "consider to".

John AkiYou rescued many people (which who were) trapped inside the fallen building.

(people who ...; things which ...)

OK as shown.

John AkiNo signature (is) required. No appointment (is) needed.

Correct. We can omit the auxiliary verb before the past participle in short notices like these.

John Aki

BTW for these "catenative verbs"

I saw you did do that last night. (Whole event) OK as shown.

I saw you doing that last night. (At that moment) OK.

I see you [ do / doing ] that all the time. OK.

Catenative 'see' and 'hear' can only take the plain form (do) and the -ing form (doing). Not the past (did) or any other form.

John AkiI saw you do that last night. (Could Does this sentences make sense to you?

Yes, this makes sense. It's a catenative construction.

John Akiit probably doesn't match tenses, but it's a catenative verb, and as the rules might be a bit different.

No, it doesn't match tenses. Catenative constructions do not match tenses.

So yes, the rules are different for catenatives. A catenative verb requires the following verb to take a non-finite form, which is not considered a tense. The tenses are called finite forms.

CJ

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more