Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="topkollek" data-source="post: 31566656" data-attributes="member: 510150">මුන් ඉහල උසාවිවල වැඩ කරන්නෙ ඉංගිරිසියෙන් කියල කියනවා නේද? [MEDIA=twitter]2090404923343323607[/MEDIA][MEDIA=twitter]2090313103657631958[/MEDIA]I found the following English/grammar issues. As requested, I am not correcting them:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“the several correspondences” — “correspondences” is grammatically possible, but the construction is awkward/unusual in this context.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“This was an important and timely proposal” — The use of “was” may be inconsistent if the proposal is still current/ongoing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“thereby creating an opportunity” — The participial phrase has an unclear grammatical subject/referent.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“on this Constitutional Amendment” — Capitalization of “Constitutional” may be inconsistent with standard usage unless it is part of a formal title.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“the position of the Government expressed threat” — This is the most obvious grammatical error. “expressed threat” does not fit grammatically in this construction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“there appears to be no consensus on the same” — “the same” is awkward/non-idiomatic here. It is also unclear whether it refers to the proposal, the briefing, or the Government's position.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“nor interest presently by the Government” — The word order is grammatically awkward.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“its Members of Parliament” — This is potentially awkward because Members of Parliament are not normally described as belonging to a government in this way. Depending on the intended meaning, the construction may be inappropriate.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“to objectively consider their approach” — The placement of “objectively” is grammatically possible but stylistically awkward; it may also create ambiguity about what exactly is being considered objectively.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“consider their approach to the same” — Again, “the same” is awkward/non-idiomatic and makes the antecedent less clear.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“we would request that you would kindly take steps” — The combination “request that you would” is unnecessarily indirect and awkward. There is also a tense/mood issue in the construction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“until there could be assured bipartisan participation” — This is grammatically problematic. “there could be assured” is not a natural construction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“participation for the same” — “for the same” is awkward and unclear in this context.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“following up with the same” — “with the same” is awkward/non-idiomatic. It is unclear what exactly is being followed up.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“which was a progressive step in this constitutional debate” — The antecedent of “which” is somewhat ambiguous: it could refer to the briefing, proposing the briefing, or proposing and following up on it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Capitalization inconsistency: The letter uses “Constitutional Amendment” earlier but “constitutional debate” later. If “Constitutional Amendment” is not a formal title, the capitalization should generally be consistent.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">“Thank you,” at the end — Not necessarily an error, but the letter already begins with “We thank you...” in the preceding paragraph, making the closing somewhat repetitive.</li> </ol>The most serious actual grammatical problems are numbers 5, 7, 12, and 14. The others are mostly awkward constructions, idiomatic issues, ambiguity, or style rather than outright grammatical errors.මම චට්ග්ප්ට්</blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom