+0
Could you please help me correct these sentences please?

- Its the first time I heard of this happening.

- I know what it's like being scared of not knowing if you're going to live to see tomorrow. (can one be scared of not knowing something?)

- I can only tell you what I know to be medically possible/what I know is medically possible.

- Are you not the least bit worried that you might not live to see tomorrow. (isn't LEAST BIT followed by a noun?)

- A lot of people in the government are part of the opposition posing as people working for the governement.

- I'll be here with you all night until tomorrow.

- I can't picture myself (being) old with you.

Thank you
1 2
Comments  
It's the first time I've heard of this happening.

'It's' is a contraction of 'it is', so the apostrophe is needed. You've finished hearing about something, but you're talking about the state of having heard about something, and that state still persists, so you should use the present-perfect tense: 'I have'.

I know what it's like being scared: scared because you don't know if you're going to live to see tomorrow.

You can be scared of not knowing something, but I think that in your case you're scared because you don't know; you're not scared of not knowing. You can't, however, just write 'I know what it's like being scared because you don't know if you're going to live to see tomorrow'. Such a sentence could mean that 'I' knows what he knows as a result of 'you' being scared; this is not what you want to say, which is why I've added the colon and repeated the word 'scared'. This emphasises the theme of the sentence, which is not a bad thing.

I can only tell you what I know to be medically possible.

I can only tell you what I know is medically possible.

Both sentences are correct.

I'll finish this off if I can find the time.
Are you not the least bit worried that you might not live to see tomorrow?

You forgot the question mark. Otherwise, this sentence is fine. "The least bit" is a phrasal adverb describing the past participle "worried". You've used both correctly.

A lot of people in the Government are secretly aligned with the Opposition.

A lot of people in the Government are secretly working for the Opposition.

A lot of people in the Government are secretly working against it.

A lot of people working for the Government are secretly aligned with the Opposition.

A lot of people working for the Government have Opposition sympathies.

A lot of people who are ostensibly working for the Government are in fact working against it.

As you've written it, the latter part of your sentence makes it sound as if the opposition party, considered as a whole, is posing as 'people working for the government', which doesn't make much sense. Also, your sentence is needlessly verbose; you say much the same thing twice. Furthermore, when you're referring to a specific government and a specific opposition party, Government and Opposition are proper nouns and should be capitalized.

Remember, being 'in the Government' means you're a Government Member of Parliament, or a member of the Executive, or both; if you're 'working for the government', you're usually either a political aide or public servant. Your sentence uses one phrase then the other to refer to the same group of people.

I'll be here with you all night.

Although not incorrect, the words 'until tomorrow' are superfluous. If you're staying all night, you must be staying until tomorrow. If you'll be here all of tomorrow as well, replace 'until' in your sentence with 'and'. If you'll be here for only some of tomorrow, replace 'until' with 'and into' or 'for some of'.

I can't picture myself being old with you.

The above sentence is correct. But saying 'I can't picture myself growing old with you' might be a better way of putting it.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Futurist
I know what it's like being scared: scared because you don't know if you're going to live to see tomorrow.


Hi, Futurist

Could you tell me the name of this construction/style, which repeats the noun and modifies it with 'because'? Or is this just something you made up to disambiguate the sentence?
Using a word at the end of one phrase, clause, or sentence and then again at the being of the next phrase, clause, or sentence is a rhetorical device called anadiplosis. It's an obscure word, but the device itself is common enough. The use of anadiplosis is not restricted to the particular grammatical construction above. One might write:

I know what it's like being scared: scared of not living to see tomorrow.

I know what it's like being scared: scared that tomorrow won't come.

If we dare to hope, hope for a better tomorrow, a better tomorrow might just come.

Anadiplosis is used to emphasize a particular word. But in the particular case of alc24's sentence, it has the side benefit of eliminating ambiguity, which is indeed why I made the change.
Thank you.

What is the difference between anadiplosis and resumptive modifiers?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
First, anadiplosis describes the entire rhetorical device, i.e. both instances of the repeated word considered together. The term 'resumptive modifier' only describes the modifying phrase.

Second, while a resumptive modifier often forms part of an instance of anadiplosis, it doesn't have to. A resumptive modifier can pick up on any word in a sentence, not just the word immediately prior to that resumptive modifier. Consider the following sentence:

The Swiss watchmakers' failure to capitalize on the invention of the digital timepiece was both astonishing and alarmingastonishing in that the Swiss had, since the beginnings of the industrial revolution in Europe, been among the first to capitalize on technical innovations, alarming in that a tremendous industrial potential had been lost to their chief competitors, the watchmakers of Japan.

Neither resumptive modifier follows the original instance of the word it modifies; thus, there is no anadiplosis in the above sentence.

Third, you can have an instance of anadiplosis without a resumptive modifier:

They were free. Free men will do anything to remain so.
Thank you.

So with anadiplosis, the repeated word can be part of a new dependent clause, a new main clause, or a new phrase. SO we have to puntuate it accordingly, right? That is, if it is the repeated word is modified by a dependent clause (as in with the original case you provided), we need a dash, colon or comma...
English 1b3So with anadiplosis, the repeated word can be part of a new dependent clause, a new main clause, or a new phrase. SO we have to puntuate it accordingly, right? That is, if it is the repeated word is modified by a dependent clause (as in with the original case you provided), we need a dash, colon or comma...
Yes, that's right.

I should point out that you might also use the word anadiplosis to describe the repetition of a short phrase, such as in this example I used previously:

If we dare to hope, hope for a better tomorrow, a better tomorrow might just come.

You could say there were two instances of anadiplosis in the above sentence, the second being the repetition of "a better tomorrow".
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more