"You can find Stenchurion at the north sea from Gleeba (you must meet it on the sea not the other place)"

Stenchurion is the name of the monster, what I want to write is the location of the monsters ( the sea located north from Gleeba).


"You should get it easily, the only trouble in this quest is rarity of Stenchurion on the sea, so just be patient until you meet with it"

It is hard to find Stenchurion; is it corrrect to use sentence above?

Please tell me if I make mistakes on the sentences above
Thank you very much
1. "You can find Stenchurion at the north sea from Gleeba."

The word "at" in the first sentence makes the meaning unclear. If Stenchurion is in the water of the sea, you should write "in the sea," and if it is near the sea (but not in the water of it), write "near the sea" or "around the sea."

If you mean that the sea is found by going North from Gleeba, then the correct way to write this is "the sea North of Gleeba." Saying "the north sea from Gleeba" almost makes it sound like the sea came from Gleeba, rather than lying to the North of it.

If you change it in the ways I described, the sentence becomes: "You can find Stenchurion in the sea North of Gleeba." meaning that the monster is in a body of water that is North of the area called Gleeba.

2. "You should get it easily, the only trouble in this quest is rarity of Stenchurion on the sea, so just be patient until you meet with it."

This is a very tricky sentence. It is mostly clear what you mean, but it does not sound natural.

"You should" implies a command. The speaker is telling the listener what to do. In this sense, it sounds harsh to me. Unless you intended a very forceful meaning, I think the word should be changed to "you should be able."

The word "get" can be a very unclear word when it is used by itself. "Get" usually means to grab, or obtain, or to take possession of. In this context, because you are talking about a monster, it sounds like you are taking or capturing it. If that's what you intended, I would change the word to "you should be able to capture it easily." Also, how is it being captured? If it is being grabbed by a person's hands, then you can change it to "you should be able to get a hold of it easily." If it is being put into a cage, say "you should be able to imprison it easily" or "contain it easily." (Only if it is clear in earlier sentences how you are capturing it can you leave the word as "get.")

The comma should be a semicolon, like this: ;

Saying "trouble in a quest" is incorrect. A better way to say it is "the only troublesome part in this quest is..." or "the only part of this quest that will give you trouble is..."

A more natural way to say the next part of the sentence is "how rare Stenchurion is in the sea," but this raises a question: is Stenchurion one monster with that name, or are there many monsters that are all named that? If there is one Stenchurion, "rare" is incorrect. If there is one, say "how hard it is to find Stenchurion in the sea." If there are many, say "how rare Stenchurions are in the sea." I am assuming that there is only one.

The next part that sounds wrong is "until you meet with it." When you say "meet," it usually implies that you are meeting a person; you wouldn't say you're meeting an animal. If the monster can talk or is like a person, saying "meet" is fine, but then you would change the word "it" to "him" or "her". "It" sounds strange anyways, because you are referring to a creature by name. Usually if a person is talking about an animal with a name, they use a gender pronoun ("Skippy loves his dog food," etc.). If the monster is not human like, but more like an animal, you would also need to change the word "meet" to "see," or "find." I am assuming that it is a male beast.

All of that changes the sentence to "You should be able to capture him easily; the only part of this quest that will give you trouble is how hard it is to locate Stenchurion in the sea, but just be patient until you find him."

(I changed the first "find" to "locate" because I used the word "find" later in the sentence. It sounds better if you do not repeat words in the sentence."

Thanks if you actually read all that, and if you need more help please respond.
Of course I will read all of it.Emotion: yawn[Y]
Thank you very much for your help. I really learn a lot from your post.
My question:
Do I need to add "to" in should be able?I have been taught to use " able to +V1" in my school.

once again thank you very much. I hope you can teach me more about english in future.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Yes, you must say "be able to" in this sentence. I am not sure what you mean by "+V1", but in my experience, when you put a verb directly after "able," you need to use "to."

For example:

I wasn't able to see him.
Will you be able to come to the party?
He will never be able to walk again.

You're welcome, and I hope you found my explanations useful.