User talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See also User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship

Grammar lesson one[edit]

Just a few points on the following:

"If someone don't like them or lack access, then read these reliable refs, supporting same information. For 1st ref.[7] 2nd ref [8] 3rd ref.[9] Nothing is fringe in my opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)"

Bladesmulti:

1) All these words are singular and always take the singular form of the verb:

  • someone/somebody
  • anyone/anybody
  • no one/nobody
  • everyone/everybody
That is, "Someone is...."; "I don't know anybody who believes...."; "No one says...."; and "Everyone knows".
Instead of "If someone don't like them", I would write: "If there is anyone who doesn't like them...." or "If anyone dislikes them or lacks access to them....".

2) "reliable refs, supporting same information":

a) It would be more correct to say, "reliable refs, which support the same information" (or "which support the same view").
b) "Same information" is wrong; it is always wrong. You need the definite article "the" before "information" because you are referring to specific information. You and your reader both know which information you are referring to. It's got to be "the same information".

3) Regarding "read these reliable refs": It's all right, but it is in the imperative form. It is a command. If you want to be more polite, use something like:

  • "I suggest that you read....",
  • "I recommend that you read...",
  • "I recommend reading...", or
  • "I urge you to read..."

So, re-written, it would be:

"If there is anyone who doesn't like them or lacks access to them, then I suggest that he/she* read these reliable refs, which support the same information."

  • Note that the pronoun that goes with "anyone" (or any one of the words listed above, "someone", even "everyone"), is the singular pronoun: "he" or "she" (and "him" or "her" for the object pronoun and "his" or "her" for the possessive adjective). People often use the plural "they", "them", and "their", but it is not correct. "You" is also not correct. If you don't know whether the person is male or female, you can choose "he" or "she", or write "he or she" or "he/she". (If you want to use "you", then don't use "anyone", "someone", etc. Just start with you: "If you....") CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson two[edit]

Bladesmulti:

Regarding the following comment:

"And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories, that is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology", tag can be removed too I guess."

There are three complete sentences here:

  • And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories.
  • That is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology".
  • Tag can be removed too I guess."

You have joined the three sentences with commas. That makes it all ungrammatical. You have several options:

1) Put a period after each one and start the new sentence with a capital letter:

And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories. That is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology". The tag can be removed, too, I guess.

2) Join all three sentences; use semi-colons:

And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories; that is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology"; the tag can be removed, too, I guess.

3) Join two of the sentences with a semi-colon. Leave the third one as a separate sentence:

"And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories; that is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology". The tag can be removed, too, I guess.

Finally, you need the definite article "the" before "tag". You are referring to a specific tag that has already been mentioned or is understood by both you and your reader.CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Lesson three[edit]

Just some points about the comment just above:

"There is nothing like "native religions" in the source. But it was written only for making the lead, neutral, by other person. I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago, had 2-3 agreements too. I disagree with the latest tags of that article though, but let it be there for few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly make the article larger, good for me, since I had created that page."

1) "But it was written only for making the lead, neutral, by other person."

(a) "But" is not necessary.
(b) The comma after "the lead" is not necessary.
(c) The phrase "by the other person" really should be after "written".
(d) The phrase "for making" is all right, but "to make" is better. ("To make" is really a shortened form of "in order to make".)
(e) You need the definite article "the" before "other person". Even if you didn't have the word "other", you would still need "the". You are referring to a specific (definite) person.
So, written in Standard English, this would be:
"It was written by the other person only to make the lead neutral."
You don't even need "by the other person". It could be just:
"It was written only to make the lead neutral."

2) "I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago, had 2-3 agreements too."

(a) "I just made it better." is the main, or independent, clause. "After proposing like 3 days ago" is a prepositional phrase (starting with the preposition "after"). It's O.K. to attach the prepositional phrase to the main clause like that. "Had 2-3 agreements too" is a verb phrase (starting with the past tense verb "had"). It is missing a subject (noun or noun phrase) before it, so we call it a sentence fragment. The way it is, it is ungrammatical. I believe you intended the "I" of the first clause also to be the subject for "had 2-3 agreements too". That's all right. You can have two verb phrases for one subject, but you have to add "and" to connect it. Or you can put a period after "ago" and start a new sentence, but in that case you have to repeat the subject ("I"). You can also use a semi-colon after "ago", but you must put the subject so you have a complete clause. Here are the three possibilities:
  • I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago, and had 2-3 agreements too." (one subject ("I"), with two verb phrases)
  • I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago. I had 2-3 agreements too." (two separate, complete sentences)
  • I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago; I had 2-3 agreements too." (two complete clauses joined by a semi-colon)
(b) In "I just made it better", I believe "it" refers to the lead. "Proposing" means suggesting. You need an object (noun or noun phrase) after "proposing". Proposing what? Suggesting what?
(c) In "like 3 days ago", "like" is not really correct. It's all right for informal conversation, but it is not correct. You should use "about" or "around": "after proposing ..... about three days ago".
(d) You should put a comma after "2-3 agreements": "[I] had 2-3 agreements, too."

So, written in standard English, you would choose one of the three patterns, above. I will use the second one as an example. It should look like this:

"I just made it better, after proposing [....] about three days ago. I had two to three agreements, too."

(Note: Even if you use numbers instead of the words for the numbers, you still need the grammar to be correct.)

3) Regarding this: "I disagree with the latest tags of that article though, but let it be there for few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly make the article larger, good for me, since I had created that page."

(a) In "but let it be there for a few days", what does "it" refer to? I think you mean "the tags" – let the tags be there". "Tags" is plural, so you need to use the third-person-plural object pronoun "them", not the singular "it":
"I disagree with the latest tags of that article, though, but let them be there...."
(b) Regarding the structure of the sentence, everything is fine up to "good for me". Then it becomes ungrammatical. "Good for me" is a sentence fragment. It is not a complete sentence or clause. The complete sentence or clause would be "It is good for me" or "That is good for me" or even "That would be good for me." If you use one of these, you need to start a new sentence, after a period, or a new clause, after a semi-colon (see the second and third examples starting "I just made it better", above.):
"...but let them be there for a few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly made the article larger. That would be good for me, since I had created that page."
But, you can also attach that last sentence to the first sentence by changing it to an adjective clause. The word "that" in "That would be good for me" refers to all the actions in the previous sentence, particularly the last phrase. You make an adjective clause by substituting "which" for "that":
"...but let them be there for a few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly made the article larger, which would be good for me, since I had created that page."

(Since you are not defining anything with this adjective clause but merely adding additional information, or an additional thought, you need a comma after "larger" and before the adjective clause.)

(c) Now a note regarding the verb tenses here:
(1) In "...and certainly made the article larger", "made" is in the wrong tense. This clause, starting with "so", is really:
"so people can add some more views [and so people can [in this way, or thus] certainly make the article larger."
"so people can add some more views and thus make the article larger". ("Certainly" is all right; "thus" is better.)
Always think: What is the subject of this verb? What is the entire verb? Here, the subject is "people" and the entire verb is "can make". Past tense "made" just doesn't fit here.
(2) In "since I had created that page", you don't need past perfect tense here ("had created"). All you need is past tense: "created". You would need the past perfect if you mention it in connection with a time (such as "yesterday") or action ("I told you about it" or "you posted your comment") in the past so that you are mentioning two things in the past in the same sentence. The earlier one of the two needs to be in past perfect tense, as in, "I had created it before you posted your comment." or "By yesterday morning I had already created it." In your sentence, you don't have that. You have, "which would be good for me because I created that page". "Would be good" is not in the past. It is really in the future, hypothetically and hopefully: If the other editors add their views and make the article larger, it would be good for me." So you only need the past tense, "created".

So, written in Standard English, your sentence would be:

"I disagree with the latest tags of that article though, but let them be there for few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly make the article larger, which would be good for me, since I created that page."

That's all for now. Note: I will not give any more "grammar lessons" if I do not find any kind of reply from you. There are no exercises for you to do, but at least you could acknowledge that you have read the lesson.CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. No argument here. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
CorinneSD, do something about this revert? :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chanakya&curid=481604&action=history Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, when you say "Excellent. No argument here.", does that mean that you would rather not have any more grammar lessons? I only wrote that because I had already typed three long lessons and had received no acknowledgement that you had even seen them. Then, after that, 74 informed me that for a few days you had been reluctant to respond because you had thought the five-edit limit applied to the mentorship pages, too, but that 74 had explained to you that it did not apply.
I have a few questions:
1) Have you read the three "lessons"?
2) Did they make sense to you? Or are they too long or too difficult to follow?
3) Did they help you in any way?
4) Do you want me to continue providing these kinds of "lessons"?
Finally, I don't know what you wanted me to see, or to do, when you asked, "do something about this revert?" and provided a link. I didn't see any of your writing there. What am I supposed to see, or do, with regard to the revert? CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You had told me, that if there is need of any non-conflicting revert, I can ask you. I think, that one is really non-conflicting. Also each of these lessons made a lot of sense, they weren't hard. It took a while to understand. Like 20 minutes. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't remember saying that. I believe I said that I would be glad to look at any edits you have made or would like to make, or comments you have posted on Talk pages, to review your writing. But in this case, when I clicked on the link, I did not see any writing by you, nor even any edit made by you. If there is something you want me to look at, you'll have to be more specific. I really cannot judge the quality or appropriateness of edits to articles on topics about which I know very little. I can only help you with writing.CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

grammar practice session 4[edit]

Bladesmulti, for this information below, can you please explain the contents, in your own words? Tell myself and Corinne how this is different from the idea of Sati, and from the idea of a suicide attack.

Anumarana. Voluntary death at funerals has been described in northern India before the Gupta empire. The original practices were called anumarana, and were uncommon. Anumarana was not comparable to later understandings of the practice of sati, since the practices were not restricted to widows — rather, anyone, male or female, with personal loyalty to the deceased could commit suicide at a loved one's funeral. These included the deceased's relatives, servants, followers, or friends. Sometimes these deaths stemmed from vows of loyalty,[1] and bear a slight resemblance to the later tradition of seppuku in Japan.[2]

This is not supposed to be a difficult question! It is just for grammar-practice, so you get a chance to explain a concept. CorinneSD and myself will try to help you with re-writing, and Arilnordby is also interested in your thoughts on these ideas. Don't worry about sourcing — this is just writing, for practicing writing. Please give us 99 words that explain anumarana, sati, and the similar ideas. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 5[edit]

Hi, Bladesmulti -- Some words in English can be nouns or verbs or even adjectives. Sometimes they are spelled the same but pronounced differently, with the stress (emphasis) on a different syllable, as these are:

content

Noun: CON tent, as in: We need to modify the content of the article. (ie., what is in the article)
Verb: con TENT, as in: I will content myself with what I have already written. (ie., be satisfied with, be happy with)
Adjective: con TENT, as in: Are you content with the way it is written? (ie., satisfied, happy)

produce

Noun: PRO duce, as in: You will find onions in the produce section of the supermarket.
Verb: pro DUCE, as in: What does this factory produce? This factory produces cars.


Some other words are spelled differently:

advice - advise

In this case, the stress is on the same syllable but the consonant sound in that syllable is different:

Noun: ad VICE, as in: Can you give me some advice on where to find a good reference?
Verb: ad VISE, as in: I advise you to be cautious. (The "s" in advise is pronounced like English "z", with voice.)

So, in your recent sentence, "Indeed ES, Thanks for your advise once again.", the noun is spelled wrong. It should be "your advice".

Here is an example of a word where the pronunciation of a letter -- in this case "s" -- changes :

Noun: SIG na ture, as in: We need your signature here.
Verb: sign, as in: Print your name. Then sign over your signature. (The "s" in both "sign" and "signature" is the regular "s" sound, unvoiced (with no voice).)
Verb: re-sign (almost equal stress on each syllable) (meaning "sign again"), as in: Your signature didn't come out clearly. You'll have to re-sign. (The "s" is pronounced the same as in "sign", above -- unvoiced.)
Verb: re SIGN (meaning quit a job), as in: I'm not happy here. I'm going to resign. (The "s" is pronounced like English "z", with voice.)
Noun: re sig NA tion (meaning 1) quitting a job, or 2) reluctant acceptance of a situation), as in: He handed in his letter of resignation this morning. or: He faced the prospect of looking for another job with resignation. (The "s" is pronounced like "z", with voice.)

There are many other words like this. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See also: wikt:content, wikt:produce, wikt:advise, wikt:advice, wikt:signature, wikt:resign, wikt:resignation. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

practice re-writing[edit]

Here is something that has 2 grammar mistakes. One is a noun-verb mistake. One is a punctuation-capitalization mistake.

Indeed ES, Thanks for your advise once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, please find the 2 mistakes, and then re-write the sentence, with improvements. If you do not see the mistakes, just ask and we will help. But you should try hard to re-write the sentence. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just told him about one of the mistakes. Here is a hint for the other mistake: "Indeed, ES" is not a complete sentence. "Indeed" is an adverb. It is similar to saying, "Surely, ES,..." The phrase is part of another, complete sentence. That's the hint.
Bladesmulti: We start each new sentence with a capital letter. "Indeed, ES," is a phrase. It is not a sentence. It has to be attached to a complete sentence. The complete sentence is "Thanks for your advice once again." So, if "Indeed, ES," starts the sentence, you don't need a capital letter on "thanks"! That's one mistake. The other one is spelling, and I explained that in the lesson just above this.CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see either an edit or a comment written by Bladesmulti from which I can create a lesson. I haven't seen one lately.CorinneSD (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
CorinneSD, check Hinduism and Judaism, it is 2-3 times larger compared to previous 30 hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, no, try again. We are teaching grammar here, not AfD stuff. There are 2 grammar mistakes in this sentence: "Indeed ES, Thanks for your advise once again." Bladesmulti, you fix the mistakes. Then, Bladesmulti, you rewrite the sentence. That is the kind of practice you need. Look for mistakes. Fix the mistakes. Write the sentence again, with improvements. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 6[edit]

Well, finally I found something written by Bladesmulti so I could create the next grammar lesson. It was on JJ's talk page on February 6:

"I saw what you wrote on Drmies's page. It should be obvious that even you agree, we have similar issue with about 3 or more editors, who are even worse than Yoonadaue, at this moment, when it comes to the same guidelines, issues, that you referred. You cannot make issue of what he is saying on talk page, maybe because everyone is free for expressing themselves on talk page, as long as they don't rage. But I really think that he is not going to create any sandbox, and the way he is "demanding", is going to waste time. Relax."

1) The first lesson is on this:

It should be obvious that even you agree, we have similar issue with about 3 or more editors, who are even worse than Yoonadue, at this moment, when it comes to the same guidelines, issues, that you referred."

In the phrase "about 3 or more editors", you don't need "about" because "3 or more" is already an approximate range. Alternatively, you can use "about" but leave out "or more": "3 or more editors".

Here is how we use the verb to agree:

(a) agree with someone: I agree with him.
(b) agree with something: I agree with the second proposal.
(c) agree [with] something -- agree that...., where "that" begins a complete clause with a subject and a verb. You need a subject after "that". In your sentence, you do have a complete clause with a subject ("we") and a verb ("have"). What is missing in your sentence is the word "that" after "agree":
"It should be obvious that even you agree that we have..." (No comma is necessary after "agree".)

The noun "issue" is countable. That is, you can count it: one issue, two issues, three issues... Therefore, you must either use the plural, "issues" – "We have similar issues" – or use the indefinite article "a" or "an": "an issue" or "a similar issue".

What you wrote, "we have similar issue", is wrong. It has to be either "we have similar issues" or "we have a similar issue". It's your choice.

The adjective clause following "editors", "who are even worse than Yoonadue", is a restrictive adjective clause. That means it defines which editors you are referring to. It's the editors who are even worse than Yoonadue, not the editors who complained on ANI, for example. Therefore, no comma is necessary after "editors" and before the adjective clause beginning with "who".

You don't need any of the other commas in the material that follows "editors". All of that is part of the adjective clause beginning with "who".

"...that you referred" is incomplete. It is an adjective clause describing the guidelines and issues. The original (separate) sentence was: "You referred to those guidelines and issues." You can see that the phrase "guidelines and issues" is the object of the preposition "to". There are three ways to form the adjective clause:

"...we have similar issues with about 3 or more editors who are even worse than Yoonadaue at this moment when it comes to the same guidelines and issues
1) that you referred to
2) you referred to
(You can leave out "that" when there is a subject for the clause, and there is one here. It is "you".)
3) to which you referred.
(1) and (2) are less formal. They are used in conversation and informal writing. Using (1), your sentence would read,
"...we have similar issues with about 3 or more editors who are even worse than Yoonadaue at this moment when it comes to the same guidelines and issues that you referred to."
(3) is the most formal and the most correct, especially for writing. Using this, your sentence would read,
"...we have similar issues with about 3 or more editors who are even worse than Yoonadaue at this moment when it comes to the same guidelines and issues to which you referred.

2) The second lesson is on this:

"You cannot make issue of what he is saying on talk page, maybe because everyone is free for expressing themselves on talk page, as long as they don't rage."

First, by "You cannot make issue of", I am assuming that you mean, "you cannot create an argument about". If I am right, then just one thing needs to be changed. It is the same correction I mentioned above, that "issue" is a countable noun and thus you must use either the plural or the singular with the indefinite article "a" or "an". I think the singular works here, especially since "make an issue of" is an idiomatic expression. So all you need to add is "an".

Similarly, "talk page" by itself is wrong. "Talk page" is countable. You must decide whether you want to use the plural, "talk pages", or the singular, "a talk page," "this talk page," "the talk page," "his talk page," or "my talk page".

Second, if a verb follows the adjective "free", it must be in the infinitive form: "free to do something", not the -ing form (expressing). So it should be "everyone is free to express...."

Third, although you will hear "everyone is free to express themselves....as long as they don't rage," it is really incorrect. As I told you in an earlier lesson, "everyone" is a singular noun. It should read, "everyone is free to express himself...as long as he doesn't rage," or "everyone is free to express herself...as long as she doesn't rage," or "everyone is free to express himself or herself...as long as he or she doesn't rage". People use "they", "them", and "themselves" either because they don't know that "everyone" is singular or in order to avoid the problem of choosing the right pronoun (or both pronouns), but if you want to be correct, you must use the singular pronouns. Another way to avoid this problem is to change it to "people (or editors) are free to express themselves...as long as they don't rage."

So, with corrections, your sentence would read,

"You cannot make an issue of what he is saying on the talk page, maybe because everyone is free to express himself on talk pages, as long as he doesn't rage." (You don't really need "talk page(s)" twice. You can leave out either one.)

So, in summary, compare what you wrote with the corrected version:

You wrote:

It should be obvious that even you agree, we have similar issue with about 3 or more editors, who are even worse than Yoonadaue, at this moment, when it comes to the same guidelines, issues, that you referred. You cannot make issue of what he is saying on talk page, maybe because everyone is free for expressing themselves on talk page, as long as they don't rage.

Re-written, it is:

"...we have similar issues with about 3 or more editors who are even worse than Yoonadaue at this moment when it comes to the same guidelines and issues you referred to. You cannot make an issue of what he is saying, maybe because everyone is free to express himself on talk pages, as long as he doesn't rage."

or:

"...we have similar issues with about 3 or more editors who are even worse than Yoonadaue at this moment when it comes to the same guidelines and issues to which you referred. You cannot make an issue of what he is saying, maybe because editors are free to express themselves on talk pages, as long as they don't rage."

CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 7[edit]

The following was copied from Bladesmulti's Mentorship page regarding Edit #1 on January 30, 2014. It was posed by 74 as an exercise in writing.

"This is not related to the page. Because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism. Nor it has any competence with hinduism."

1) "Because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism" is not a complete sentence. It is a subordinate clause. Just by putting "because" at the beginning of a complete clause ("the page is related to jainism, not hinduism") makes it a subordinate clause. It is an adverbial subordinate clause. Adverbial clauses tell about time, place, reason(s) or causes, and manner (way of doing something). A subordinate clause cannot be by itself. It must be attached to a complete sentence – an independent clause.

You do have two independent clauses here: "This is not related to the page" and "Nor it has any competence with hinduism in this regard". To which one of these should your subordinate clause be attached? "Because..." expresses a reason. For what, exactly, is it the reason? I think you will agree that it is the first sentence: "This is not related to the page." Why? Because the page is related to jainism..." But you've got to join them:
"This is not related to the page because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism."

2) You will notice that in this sentence you used "is (not) related to" twice. Stylistically, that's not the best writing, but besides that, "is (not) related to" is not even the best verb to use. We use "is (not) related to" when it is two topics, or a sub-topic and a topic: "[sub-topic] is related to [topic X] but is not related to [topic Y]" (you can fill in the blanks with something). In your sentence, it would be better to use more accurate verbs:

"This does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism."

It would be clearer if you used a noun after "This":

"This quote does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism."

3) Your last clause, "Nor it has any competence with hinduism in this regard," needs work.

"Nor" is a conjunction. "This, and not that" means "This, nor that." "Nor" is normally used to join two complete clauses. But, like "but", sometimes people use it to start a new sentence (as in this one). But, because "nor" is negative, the verb requires a change. What you wrote, "Nor it has," is wrong. First, let's write the whole thing in a different way (I am not sure what you mean by "competence". I really don't understand that. But I'll leave it and just discuss the sentence structure. I also don't understand "in this regard". Do you mean, "similarly"? Since I don't understand it, I'm going to leave it out):

"This quote does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism, and it does not have any competence with hinduism in this regard."

Notice that the negative is in the verb following "and": "does not have". If you put the negative before the verb (using words such as "neither", "never", and "nor"), the verb changes to "does it have":

"This quote does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism, and neither does it have any competence with hinduism."

Another way is:

"This quote does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism, and nor does it have any competence with hinduism."

You can leave out "and", but then you need to use a semi-colon:

"This quote does not belong on this page because the page is about jainism, not hinduism; nor does it have any competence with hinduism." This is actually the best way to write it.

If you want to explain to me what you meant by "does not have any competence with hinduism" and "in this regard," I will be glad to suggest clearer alternatives. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 8[edit]

You wrote on February 12, "Yes, it should had been much more accurate...." The verb should be: "should have been," not "should had been" (which is never correct).

Present-Future Form: should be

Past Form: should have been

Present-Future Form: would be

Past Form: would have been

Present-Future Form: may be

Past Form: may have been

Present-Future Form: might be

Past Form: might have been

Present-Future Form: could be

Past Form: could have been

Present-Future Form: ought to be (= should be)

Past Form: ought to have been (= should have been)

I explained the use of Past Perfect Tense (had + past participle, as in "had been", "had seen", etc.) in another lesson, above. – CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. "Yes, it should have been much more accurate."
"ought to have been" - is something new. "that ought to have been enough."< It is correct? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. "That ought to have been enough" is correct. It is nearly the same as "That should have been enough". (I would use "should have been enough" because it's shorter and simpler.) The difference between "should" and "ought to" is very slight. I would say that "ought to" may be a bit more polite than "should", especially when speaking about what a person should, or ought to, do, as in "You really ought to send a thank-you note." Remember that all those modal auxiliary verbs I listed above can be used with almost any verb, not just "be": "should go", "should have gone", "should have", "should have had", "would add", "would have added", "ought to write", "ought to have written", etc.
By the way, I want to tell you something about your question at the end of your last comment, just above, is "It is correct?". "It is correct" is a statement. Although people sometimes create a question out of a statement just by changing the intonation so that it sounds like a question, it is not really grammatically correct to express a question in statement word order. You can ask the question two ways:
1) Express your thoughts first. Then add a question at the end (as you did above), but the question would be: "Is that correct?" or "Is this correct?"
2) Put the item that you are asking about in the middle of the question:
Is "That ought to have been enough" correct? CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Summarizing this lesson:

  • C. You wrote on February 12, "Yes, it should had been much more accurate...." The verb should be: "should have been," not "should had been" (which is never correct). —Corinne
B. Perfect. "Yes, it should have been much more accurate." —Bladesmulti
74. That is perfectly clear, thank you Corinne. "Yes, it should have been much more accurate." —74-re-writing-for-Bladesmulti
  • C. Past Form: ought to have been (= should have been)
B. "ought to have been" - is something new.
74. The phrase "ought to have been" is something new (to me).
  • C. Express your thoughts first. Then add a question at the end (as you did above), but the question would be: "Is that correct?"
B. "that ought to have been enough."< It is correct?
74. For example, I might say "...that ought to have been enough...." Is that correct?

Also, see the wikt:ought definition. "You ought to cite sources when adding info to wikipedia." That means: it is morally important to cite sources. Similarly: "you ought to be WP:NICE to other editors." The sentences can be written different words. "You can/must/may/are_at_liberty_to/needn't/mustn't/should/ought_to cite sources when adding info to wikipedia." Similarly: "You can/must/may/are_at_liberty_to/needn't/mustn't/should/ought_to be WP:NICE to other editors." This is a spectrum of meaning. wikt:can is very optional. wikt:may is optional. wikt:should is recommended-but-optional. wikt:ought_to is morally-correct-and-therefore-highly-recommended-but-technically-optional. wikt:must is non-optional. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that 74 is trying to explain the differences in meaning among the various modal auxiliary verbs ("modals" for short). If you read the links provided, you will learn more about that. I believe, though, 74, the last few lines of your comment just above with all the hyphens might be a little confusing. I will make a list here:

1) can expresses permission: You can offer your opinion whenever you want. An editor can delete things on his/her own Talk page but not on other editors' Talk pages.

can expresses ability: You can delete something by highlighting it and clicking "Delete" and then "Save". He can find more sources on-line.

2) may expresses possibility: If you lose power, you may lose all your work. (= You may lose all your work, but you may not lose it.) I may decide to work on that article. He may be a suitable mediator. I'm not sure. It may not be in the right format.

may expresses permission: After three hours, you may take a fifteen-minute break.

3) might expresses possibility: I might be a little late to the meeting. You can try X, but it might be a little difficult. I think it's going to rain. We might have to cancel the picnic. ("May" and "might" are very close in meaning.) He might have been a little more polite [than he was]].

4) should expresses obligation: I should finish this before I leave. You should first ask other editors what they think. You should have posted a comment on the talk page before you made any changes.

should expresses recommendation: You should create a draft in your Sandbox before you add it to the article. You should see a dentist.
should expresses expectation: It should be a nice day tomorrow. He should be back in about half an hour.

5) must expresses strong obligation: In order to drive, you must have a driver's license. If you want to pass this class, you must complete all the assignments.

6) have to/had to expresses obligation: I can't stay late today; I have to get home by 5 p.m. She can't go out with us this evening; she has to study for an examination. Sorry that I couldn't be there yesterday; I had to work late.

Note that there is no past form for "must". In order to express strong obligation in the past, you must use "had to".

7) ought to expresses obligation and is a near synonym for "should": You ought to read Wikipedia policies before you start editing. You ought to thank him for his help. I ought to have studied more for that exam.

8) do/did "Do, does, did" is also a modal auxiliary verb. It helps form questions and negative statements. It is also used as a substitute for other verbs: She likes ice cream, and I do, too. I saw "Gravity", and he did, too. He told us he would learn to drive, and now he can say that he has done so.CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. Now I want to write, "I am giving some time to these matters, hopefully, I will make less errors in future" But I don't think it is perfectly grammatical. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's almost correct. "I am giving some time to these matters" and "Hopefully, I will make less errors in future." are two complete sentences. You cannot connect two complete sentences simply with a comma. It's ungrammatical. You have three choices:
(a) Put a period and start a new sentence: "I am giving some time to these matters. Hopefully, I...."
(b) Put a semi-colon after the first one: "I am giving some time to these matters; hopefully, I...."
(c) Put a connecting word (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet) between them:
"I am giving some time to these matters, and hopefully I..."

"Errors" is a countable noun. You know that because it is plural. One error, two errors, three errors... We use "a few" and "fewer" with a plural countable noun: "a few errors", "fewer errors [than before]", "the fewest errors".

Just so you know, "in future" is British English, "in the future" is American English.CorinneSD (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"The fewest errors" would be right? But what will be the correct sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just giving you the three forms of the the adjective: Base form: a few. "Everyone makes a few errors now and then." Comparative form: fewer. "X has made fewer errors than Y." "Text A has fewer errors than text Y." Superlative form: the fewest. "Text A has the fewest errors of any article I have seen." In your sentence, above, you would need to use the comparative form: "Hopefully, I will make fewer errors in [the] future." You need the comparative form because you are comparing the number of errors you will make in [the] future with the number of errors you are making now or have made recently.

Also, can you tell me the difference between "Related with" , "related to", "which is", "that is". Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I have to get back to this tomorrow.CorinneSD (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 9[edit]

  • B. You are done of all SPI and trouble.
C. cannot yet suggest a rewrite... what does the sentence mean?
74. cannot yet suggest a rewrite... what does the sentence mean?

What SPI are you talking about, Bladesmulti? Please give us a link. What trouble are you talking about, exactly? Trouble with the SPI itself? Trouble with an editor[who?] at the SPI? Trouble with something unrelated? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion. Joshua felt troubled because of a SPI, that was related to him, so he had told me to delay the idea of page move. It is old story now, I was asking for his permission, for opening a page move request on Dharmacakra. But I guess, I will have to do that myself. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I'm going to correct some things in your comment just above:

1) You wrote: "Joshua felt troubled because of a SPI, that was related to him..."

This should be: "Joshua felt troubled because of an SPI that was related to him..."

When you say "SPI", the first letter is "S", right? It sounds like "ESS", which starts with a vowel sound. It is the sound, not the letter, that determines whether one must use "a" or "an". We use "an" before a word that starts with a vowel sound. Thus: "an SPI".

"That was related to him" is an adjective clause. It tells which SPi you are referring to. There should be no comma after SPI.

2) You wrote: "...so he had told me to delay the idea of page move".

First, Joshua told you that he was troubled by the SPI. Then he told you to delay the idea of a page move. Therefore, "had told" is incorrect. (You would use "had told" if he told you something before he told you he felt troubled.)

"Move" as a noun is a countable noun: one move, two moves, three moves.... Therefore, you need to use the article "a" before the singular form: "a page move".

So, you should have written, "so he told me to delay the idea of a page move".

3) You wrote: "It is old story now, I was asking for his permission, for opening a page move request on Dharmacakra."

"Story" is a countable noun: one story, two stories, three stories... So you need to use the indefinite article before the singular form: "It is an old story now."

"I was asking for his permission..." is a complete sentence. "It is an old story now" is a complete sentence. You cannot connect two complete sentences with a comma. You have four choices:

(a) Put a period after the first sentence and start a new one:
"It is an old story now. I was asking for his permission..."
(b) Put a semi-colon after the first one:
"It is an old story now; I was asking for his permission..."
(c) Because the second one explains the first one, you can use a colon:
"It is an old story now: I was asking for his permission..."
(d) You can use a long dash:
"It is an old story now – I was asking for his permission..."
(e) Grammatically, you could connect the sentences with "and", but here it is not the best choice.

We ask for permission to do' something (or not do something). You wrote, "I was asking for his permission for opening..." It should be:

"I was asking for his permission to open a page move request..." – CorinneSD (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 11[edit]

This answers your two most recent questions in Grammar lesson 8. "Related with" is incorrect. "Related to" is always correct. Your other question will take more time to answer.

"That" and "which" sometimes are interchangeable – that is, either can be used – and sometimes only one is correct.

1) "That" is used to form noun clauses:

I know something.
What do you know?
I know that it is going to rain.

"That it is going to rain" is a noun clause. It replaces the word "something".

2) "That" and "which" are used to form adjective clauses. The following explanation applies to adjective clauses used to describe things (or animals).

A) Restrictive adjective clauses:

(a) Replacing the subject of the second sentence.
When you form an adjective clause, you are subordinating the information in one sentence and including it in another.
Here is the plant. Which plant? The plant needs fertilizer.
Here is the plant which needs fertilizer.

"Which needs fertilizer" is a restrictive adjective clause. The information in the adjective clause restricts "the plant" to one plant. It identifies the plant. Thus, no comma is used after "the plant" and before "which needs fertilizer". You can also use "that" here:

Here is the plant that needs fertilizer.

(b) Replacing the object of the second sentence:

I like the sweater. Which sweater? You wore the sweater yesterday.

I like the sweater which you wore yesterday.

"Which you wore yesterday" is a restrictive adjective clause. It identifies the sweater. So, no comma. You can also use "that":

I like the sweater that you wore yesterday.

Note that in restrictive (ie., identifying) adjective clauses where the object is replaced by "which" or "that", people often leave out "which" or "that", especially in speech and in informal writing:

I like the sweater which you wore yesterday. I like the sweater that you wore yesterday. I like the sweater you wore yesterday.

(c) Replacing the object of a preposition in the second sentence:

Here is the article. Which article? I have prepared a list of sources for the article.

Here is the article for which I have prepared a list of sources.

"For which I have prepared a list of sources" is a restrictive adjective clause. It identifies the article. Thus, no comma. Note that only "which" is correct. You cannot use "that".

In speech and informal writing, people often leave the preposition to the end:

Here is the article which I have prepared a list of sources for.

and usually also leave out "which":

Here is the article which I have prepared a list of sources for, and, often, in speech, people change "which" to "that:"

Here is the article that I have prepared a list of sources for, but this really is not totally correct; it is not used in formal writing. But, actually, it sounds better and is clearer when the preposition is kept at the beginning of the clause ("for which...").

You will also see sentences with "to which...", "about which...", "by which...", "at which...", "through which...", "according to which...", etc. You will also see adjective clauses in questions:

Where are the shoes which I bought yesterday?
Where are the shoes that I bought yesterday?
Where are the shoes I bought yesterday?
Why did you undo the edits which I made to that article?
Why did you undo the edits that I made to that article?
Why did you undo the edits I made to that article?
What do you think of the quote which appears at the end of the section on "Politics"?
What do you think of the quote that appears at the end of the section on "Politics"?

B) Non-restrictive adjective clauses:

In a non-restrictive adjective clause, the information in the clause is not necessary to limit or identify the word it follows. It just adds extra information. So a non-restrictive adjective clause is set off by commas. Also, only "which" is used to form non-restrictive adjective clauses:

(a) Replacing the subject:

Your large philodendron, which needs water by the way, is doing very well.

(b) Replacing the object:

Your blue Benetton sweater, which you wore yesterday, would go well with those pants. Note that you cannot leave out "which".

(c) Replacing the object of a preposition:

You need to study Pillar 3, to which 74 has referred several times, so that you really understand it and can apply it in your editing. In speech and informal writing, you can leave the preposition at the end of the clause (actually, after the verb), but you cannot leave out "which" when it is a non-restrictive (non-identifying) adjective clause. "You need to study Pillar 3, which 74 has referred to several times, ..."

If you are interested, I can give you examples of adjective clauses using "who" and "whom" for people.CorinneSD (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 13[edit]

  • B. add source
C.

Grammar lesson 14[edit]

  • B. No, nothing really troubled, issue was months old, and I had discovered some more sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
C. Bladesmulti: "No, nothing really troubled" does not make much sense. I really don't know what you are trying to say, even though I read the backstory that 74 provided on my Talk page. I'm not sure "troubled" is even the right word. Here are some possibilities:
  • No, it's not a big deal. [Start a new sentence or put a long dash -- not just a comma!] The issue was months old. -- You need the definite article "the". "Issue" is a countable noun. It is singular. You need an article, either "an" or "the". "An issue" means "one issue" -- any issue. "The issue" means a specific issue that you have already referred to or you are pretty sure your reader knows which one you are referring to. If you haven't just referred to a specific issue or you are not sure your reader knows which issue you are referring to, you cannot use "the" until you clarify which issue it is. But "issue" by itself, without an article, is ungrammatical. (However, in the plural, you can use "issues" without an article -- it means issues in general, kind of like "an issue" means any issue. Specific issues, you would say "the issues".) So, again, some possibilities for what you might have meant by "nothing really troubled":
  • No, it's not a big deal.
  • No, it's not a problem.
  • No, it's not a serious problem.
  • No, I'm not upset about it.
  • No. There is no problem any more.
  • No. The problem is now resolved.
  • No. The issue is now resolved.

Which one did you mean?CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:CorinneSD for backstory. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First sentence was correct.. Right? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry.  :-) Your sentence ("No, nothing really troubled...") does not use correct grammar. Corinne will help you rewrite it. The main problem: YOU ARE SKIPPING WORDS. "My first sentence was correct, right?" ...or... "Was my first sentence correct?" ...or... "My sentence was correct, right?" Do not skip words; write complete sentences.
  Another big problem: YOU ARE USING VERY SHORT SENTENCES. It is extremely hard to know what you are talking about. For instance, when you say "first sentence was correct" ... what is the "first" sentence, that you refer to? Maybe you are talking about the first sentence in this section of the talkpage, grammar lesson fourteen. But maybe you are talking about the first sentence you wrote over on Corinne's talkpage. Or maybe you are talking about the first sentence you wrote on this grammar-subpage. Or maybe you are talking about some other "first sentence". Do not stop writing until you have fully explained what you mean.
  Bladesmulti, you need to realize that your English grammar is not perfect. That is okay, nobody is perfect. But you have to SLOW DOWN and be very careful to write clearly. Good grammar is important in articles. Why? Because we want the readership to be able to understand the article. Good grammar is important on talkpages. Why? Because we want other editors to be able to understand you, Bladesmulti. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This is so true, Bladesmulti. You will avoid unnecessary confusion (and editors will take what you say more seriously) if what you write is clear. I'd like to clarify what 74 wrote above about being specific about "first sentence" by putting them in a list so that you can see some alternatives clearly:

Instead of "First sentence was correct":

  • My first sentence (just above) was correct, right? - This is a statement with a "tag question" at the end. Phrase in parentheses to indicate where the sentence is to be found.
  • Was my first sentence (just above) correct? - This is a Yes-No question in past tense. Phrase in parentheses to indicate where the sentence is to be found.
  • The first sentence that I wrote on Corinne's talk page was correct, right? - Statement containing an adjective clause telling where the sentence is to be found, followed by tag question ("right?")
  • The first sentence in my comment of February 26 on ..... was correct, right? - Statement containing a prepositional phrase giving details of the sentence's location, followed by tag question.
  • Was the first sentence in my comment of February 26 on .... correct? - Yes-No question with prepositional phrase giving details of the sentence's location – CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a good solution. The more I describe, the easier it will be for rest of the editors to understand what I have written. I realize my grammar is not perfect indeed. But it can be improved, the more I read, write, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, you need to practice re-writing. Please re-write the following sentence, with better grammar: "No, nothing really troubled." Then, Bladesmulti, please re-write the following sentence, with better grammar: "Seems to be a good solution." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure. "No. The problem is now resolved. Speaking about the whole incident, I had edited that page on 20th December, the editor who had messaged, he had doubted If I was in agreement of the information which was added to the article. But I was in agreement with his general concerns about page, so I proposed other sources. Thus ending the edit conflict or any similar doubts."
"Seems to be a good solution"? It can be "Seems like a good solution". But which sentence? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, this is better, but there are still some errors.
"Speaking about the whole incident, I had edited that page on 20th December." is a complete sentence. It is fine.

"The editor who had messaged, he had doubted if I was in agreement WITH (not "of") the information which was added to the article." is a complete sentence. It is almost fine. I'll come back to it in a minute.

Now look at the punctuation after the first complete sentence (after "20th December"). What do you see? Do you see that you put a comma there? I have told you several times that you cannot connect two complete sentences with a comma (unless you have three complete clauses: X..., Y...., and Z..... Then you can put a comma after the first one; but you must have a connecting word (and/but/or etc.) before the last one: "...and Z...."). You could put "and" there, but then you have a very long sentence. It would be better to put a period to end the first sentence.

Now, beside your having used "of" instead of "with" after "in agreement", there a few things wrong with this sentence:

"The editor who had messaged, he had doubted if I was in agreement WITH (not "of") the information which was added to the article."

1) "Who had messaged" is an adjective clause. The verb to message is a modern verb; I believe it developed when e-mail began. Before that, it was only a noun: "a message", "messages". Used as a verb, we see: "I just messaged him." "I'm going to message my boss." Used this way, it is a transitive verb. That means that it must have an object after it -- a person's name, a noun (such as "my boss"), or an object pronoun such as "him", "her", or "them". You have nothing after "had messaged". You need something there such as "me": The editor who had messaged me...". An alternative would be to use the noun and a different verb: "who had posted a message on...", or "who had left a message on...".

2) In "he had doubted", "he" is the same person as "The editor". You don't have to repeat the subject of the sentence; in fact, you should not repeat it. It should read correctly even if you take out the adjective clause: "The editor...had doubted...." Subject...verb. So, you should have written, "The editor who had messaged me had doubted...." (And no comma is needed after the adjective clause. This is a restrictive (identifying) adjective clause.)

Now you have:

"The editor who had messaged me had doubted if I was in agreement with the information which was added to the article."

This is all right. There are only a few minor corrections I would make:

1) After the verb "doubted", we normally use "whether" rather than "if".

2) The information was added to the article before this editor messaged you, so you really ought to use past perfect tense: "the information that had been added to the article". So, now it should read:

"The editor who had messaged me had doubted whether I was in agreement with the information which had been added to the article."

3) Finally, it would be more concise (a mark of good writing is to use as few words as possible to say what you want to say) to use the verb: to agree instead of the noun agreement:

"The editor who had messaged me had doubted whether I agreed with the information which had been added to the article."

You can make this even shorter by changing the last clause to an adjective:

"The editor who had messaged me had doubted whether I agreed with the recently added material."

Hope this helps. CorinneSD (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

grammar lesson 15[edit]

  • B. Obviously it needs a lot of improvement, there will be some undue, it is quiet like talking about Japan-India relations. 11:38, 25 Feb
C.

See wikt:quiet versus wikt:quite. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

quiet = 2 syllables and quite = 1 syllable? I got it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, the two words do not mean the same thing.  :-)   Which one means wikt:silent/stealthy? Which one means wikt:fully/very? Then, rewrite your sentence. Fix the grammar problems in this sentence: "Obviously it needs a lot of improvement, there will be some undue, it is quiet like talking about Japan-India relations." There are missing words. There are missing periods. There are words which are incorrectly chosen. Try to fix the problems, by re-writing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 10[edit]

  • B. Made it for more understanding and frequency.
C. cannot yet suggest a rewrite... what does the sentence mean?
74. cannot yet suggest a rewrite... what does the sentence mean?

Made what, exactly ("Made it...")? Can you give us a link? Did you mean to say wikt:frequency, or did you mean another word? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. Where you found it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, your question is not even correct. It should be: "Where did you find it?"CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, here is how you look for things.[1] Can you tell us what the sentence means now? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, It was about a page called "Horse worship", when I said "Made it for more understanding and frequency", I had added one more source, because 1/2 sources included a snippet version. But the 3rd source, that I had recently added to the page is available for everyone. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson zero[edit]

Bladesmulti, do you have a PC, or do you have a tablet? Can you install Libre Office to check grammar? It is a pretty big application. Or maybe, can you install AbiWord to check grammar? It is a bit smaller. These are free as in freedom, just like wikipedia; they don't cost money. You have to download them from the official website, and install them on your computer. Do you know how to do that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it won't be difficult. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that is good. I'm having computer-problems myself this weekend, sigh. CorinneSD and Joshua Jonathan, if you want to pick a subject, preferably from the least-broad part of the spectrum, Bladesmulti can start looking for sources and working on summarizing them. I'll try to be back up and running tomorrow. TFIW 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 99[edit]

  • B.
C.
74.

CopyThisBoilerplateAsNeeded. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


PS: Additional grammar lesson. here. Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar lesson 12[edit]

I don't know why I skipped number 12 when I numbered the new lessons. I'll number this lesson 12 even though it is out of order.

Blades, on March 12 you wrote the following in reply to another editor who had posted a message on your Talk page:

"Seems surprising to me. But I must appreciate that you have answered him well enough and I can kind of see why he is not that mannerly in dealing with these subjects. Don't worry, I will have a watch."

When I saw this, I was impressed. It is quite well written. No mistakes...until the end. So I thought I'd create a lesson making the distinction between to look and to watch.

to look

to look means to focus the eyes on something for, usually, a brief moment: "Look that this." "I'm busy now, but I'll look at it later." "He's looking at the edits right now."

We often use the noun "look" in idiomatic expressions:

I'll look at it. = I'll take a look at it. = I'll have a look at it.

to watch

to watch has several meanings.

1) to keep one's eye on: "I'll watch that article." "Watch what he's doing so that you'll learn how to do it." "Watch the clock."

2) to view: "I'm going to watch television." "He's watching his favorite program now."

3) to care for (and guard): "The shepherd is watching his flock." "I have to watch the children."

So, you can see that your last statement in your comment of March 12, "Don't worry, I will have a watch." is wrong. It should be one of these (with or without the contraction "I'll"):

  • "Don't worry, I will have a look."
  • "Don't worry, I will take a look."
  • "Don't worry, I will take a look at it."
  • "Don't worry, I'll look at it." – CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
These 4 lines makes good sense. "I'll watch that article" is as sensible? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"I'll watch that article" means "I'll keep an eye on that article," or "I'll pay attention to any changes that occur on that article." It's an on-going activity. On WP, that usually means adding it to one's watchlist. The sentences with "look" (above) mean a one-time look at the article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)