PDA

View Full Version : Are these sentences grammatical?


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


maserati
March 10th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Are these sentences grammatical? And if not, could you rewrite for me or explain what’s wrong inside? Please:)
Younger infants are prone to bear little malice towards anyone around her, even when she encounters a slain porter.
The attitude of holding coronation to foe is a way of treachery, and it is also a death penalty-prone.
You are such a guy who prone to bear others hate, and prone to pay back subordinate’s treachery.

Dawnstorm
March 11th, 2006, 07:09 AM
Are these sentences grammatical? And if not, could you rewrite for me or explain what’s wrong inside? Please:)

Hi, maserati, and welcome to the forum.


Younger infants are prone to bear little malice towards anyone around her, even when she encounters a slain porter.

1. I'm not sure what you're saying in this sentence, as it's out of context. If you are saying that "younger infants bear little malice towards anyone around someone else who happens to be female" then the use of "she" and "her" is correct.

If, however, you mean "younger female infants bear little malice towards anyone around them" you ought to use "they" and "them" (as you said "infants", which is plural). Or alternatively, you could adapt the subject to the pronoun: Instead of "Younger infants" you could say "A younger infant", and the sentence would be correct, too.

2. "Younger infants": This depends on context. If you addressed an age range previously, the comparison is obviously correct.

If not, people will inevitably ask "younger than what"?


The attitude of holding coronation to foe is a way of treachery, and it is also a death penalty-prone.

I don't understand the sentence.

1. What is an "attitude of holding coronation to foe"? Do you refer to the "intention of crowning an enemy", or to "to a disrispectful attitude towards coronations"?

2. You can't say "a death penalty-prone", because prone is not a noun. It's: "and it is also death penalty-prone." (Since "death penalty" is already a compound, I wouldn't add prone after that, but simply say: "and it is also prone to the death penalty.")


You are such a guy who prone to bear others hate, and prone to pay back subordinate’s treachery.

1. "who prone to bear" --> "who is prone to bear" (who-clauses need a verb)

2. "...hate, and prone to pay back..." -->

a) grammatically, this is not incorrect. It has the structure of a list. "who is: (a) prone to bear others hate, and (b) prone to..."

b) stylistically, you may want to avoid the repetition of "prone": you would still have a list, but it would start later in the sentence: "who is prone: (a) to bear others hate, and (b) to pay back..."

3. "to pay back subordinate’s treachery" --> "to pay back a subordinate's treachery" (nouns usually need take a pronoun in English)

***

This is not a question of grammar: You seem to use the word "prone" a lot.

Sometimes it's not necessary: For example, your third sentence: Your avarage speaker of English would just say:

"You're such a guy who bears others hate and pays back a subordinate's treachery."

That's because you're making a general statement, and simple present tense sentences are fine for that. It's not that using "prone" is wrong, it's just unusual.

Also, in your second sentence, you'd probably say "and it is punishable by death" or "punishable by the death penalty." The word "prone" has a random element to it. Using "prone" in that context may make the sentence sound ironic (because it is an understatement). Again, it's not wrong, but unusual.

***

If I haven't been clear about some things, don't hesitate to ask. :)

***

By the way, there is a "sticky" grammar query thread (http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3302&page=14) at the top of the Writing forum, where such questions usually go. ;)