Are the following sentences correct grammatically? Just English speakers please answer, tnx

Question

1) My first question is about would. Are the following equivalents correct in both tense and grammar?

_The train would arrive at the platform in 10 minutes = The train may arrive within the next 10 minutes.

_ I would call you in 10 minutes, if I had time = I would call you in 10 minutes, if I have time = I may call you within the next 10 minutes, if I get any chance.

_ If I had had money, I would buy the car = If I had had money, I would have bought the car.

2) My second question is about participial adjectives: object adjective. Are the following equivalents correct in tense and grammar?

_ The car is exploded now = the car is on fire now and just caught fire

_ The car is already exploded = the car has been on fire already

_ The car is exploded tomorrow = the car may be on fire tomorrow

_ The car is exploded = the car is OK now but may be on fire in the future

_ You are hurt = you have now some wounds on

_ You are hurt = you may get injured in the future

_ You are hurt tomorrow if you play = you may get injured tomorrow

GPY · Accepted Answer

Hmmm.

1)

The train would arrive at the platform in 10 minutes = The train may arrive within the next 10 minutes.
The first sentence is either conditional and lacking an "if" part (which may be implied by context) or is the past tense of "The train will arrive at the platform in 10 minutes". Neither interpretation means the same as the second sentence.

I would call you in 10 minutes, if I have time = I may call you within the next 10 minutes, if I get any chance.
The first sentence is not natural. You would say "I will call you in 10 minutes, if I have time". "I may call you" is less definite.

If I had had money, I would buy the car = If I had had money, I would have bought the car.
The first sentence is not really feasible (seems to be saying that lack of money in the past is preventing you from buying the car now). The second is OK.

2)

The car is exploded now = the car is on fire now and just caught fire
The car is already exploded = the car has been on fire already
The car is exploded tomorrow = the car may be on fire tomorrow
The car is exploded = the car is OK now but may be on fire in the future
"The car is exploded" is not natural in any of these. "has exploded" is possible but cannot be used to talk about the future.

You are hurt = you have now some wounds on
Second sentence is incorrect.

You are hurt = you may get injured in the future
How can "You are hurt" mean "You may get injured in the future"?

You are hurt tomorrow if you play = you may get injured tomorrow
First sentence is incorrect.

CalifJim · Answer

morchAre the following equivalents correct in both tense and grammar?

No. See below

The train would arrive in 10 minutes. = The train was going to arrive in 10 minutes. = The train was scheduled to arrive in 10 minutes. (This use of would is the future of the past.)

The train may arrive in 10 minutes. = It is possible that the train will arrive in 10 minutes. = Maybe the train will arrive in 10 minutes.

I would call you, if I had time. = I don't have the time to call you, but I can imagine having the time. In this imaginary world, I see myself calling you (even though it's not really going to happen).

I may call you within the next 10 minutes. = It is possible that I will call you within the next 10 minutes. = Maybe I will call you within the next 10 minutes.

If I had had money, I would buy the car. ~ Not correct.

If I had the money, I would buy the car. = I do not have the money, but I can imagine a situation in which I do have the money. In this imaginary world, I see myself buying the car (even though it isn't really going to happen). This construction is like saying "I'm not going to buy the car because I don't have the money." [This construction is a second conditional.]

If I had had the money, I would have bought the car. = I did not have the money, but I can imagine a situation in which I did have the money. In this imaginary world, I see myself buying the car (even though it didn't really happen).
This construction is like saying "I didn't buy the car because I didn't have the money." [This structure is a third conditional.]

morchsecond question

is exploded ~ Not correct. Use 'has exploded'.
explode does not necessarily imply 'on fire'.

The car has exploded now. ~ I have been waiting for the car to explode, and now it has finally exploded.

The car has already exploded ~ I didn't expect the car to explode so soon, but it has exploded.

The car has exploded tomorrow. ~ Not correct.

You are hurt = You are now injured. (Not in the future.)

You are hurt tomorrow if you play. ~ Not correct.

You will be hurt tomorrow if you play. = You have the opportunity to play or not to play tomorrow. If you choose to play, you will be injured.

You may be hurt tomorrow if you play. = If you play tomorrow, it is possible that you will be hurt. = If you play tomorrow, it is possible that you will be injured.

CJ

Morch · Answer

First of all thank you for your time to correct me. Based on what you've written I raise the following question then.

Are these correct in formal or spoken English:

_ It would be alright, if my daughter wears a wristband

_ Johnny, if I had your parents' permission, I would let you go to the camp with others tomorrow.

If your answer is yes and the above sentences are OK in formal or spoken English so why is the following equivalent not right:

- (now it is 10:50 AM) the train would arrive at the platform by 11:00 AM (if nobody jumps over the railroad/way)= the train may arrive at the platform by 11. (sth about the first sentence is that I have heard that a lot at London Euston train station I do not know y u say is not right). What do u mean by is not natural? do u mean they are ok in spoken English?

About the object adjectives:

Ok let us find the passive voice of the following active voices:

-(Active) Mike Tyson kills you tomorrow on the ring. -> (passive) You are killed tomorrow by Mike Tyson on the ring.
-(Active) Mike Tyson hurts you tomorrow on the ring -> (Passive) You are hurt tomorrow by mike Tyson on the ring.

As we know when building a passive voice of an active voice we must keep the tense of the active voice intact in the passive voice. So simple present tense in the active voices above are preserved in the passive voices. SO y do you say "you are hurt" does not refer to future? I understand that "hurt" is an adjective but as you see it can be an object adjective in a passive voice as well. So how do you guys differentiate them?

About exploded: OK let's consider killed instead as follows:
Are these ok then in spoken or written English?

-You are killed= it means you may be killed in the future
-He is already killed= he has been killed already
-He is killed tomorrow= he may be killed tomorrow

CalifJim · Answer

morch1 It would be alright, if my daughter wears a wristband.
2 Johnny, if I had your parents' permission, I would let you go to the camp with others tomorrow.

1. It would be all right if my daughter wore a wristband. (wears a wristband also possible but more informal).
2. As you wrote it, but ... with the others tomorrow.

Both sentences above are "second conditional".

morchwhy is the following equivalent not right: the train would arrive at the platform ...

The correct version is The train will arrive at the platform by 11:00 AM if nobody jumps over the railway. "first conditional"

morchThe train may arrive at the platform by 11.

This has a different shade of meaning from the previous sentence. Maybe the train will arrive by 11; maybe it won't arrive by 11. Nobody knows for sure.

morch ... I have heard that a lot at London's Euston train station. I do not know ~~y u say is not right~~ why you say it is not right.

This is an English forum. No texting abbreviations please!

I have no idea how they speak at London's Euston station, so I can't help you explain what you heard there. When you are out in public you are likely to hear all sorts of things that are not strictly correct grammatically.

morchlet us find the passive voice
-(Active) Mike Tyson kills you tomorrow on the ring. -> (passive) You are killed tomorrow by Mike Tyson on the ring.
-(Active) Mike Tyson hurts you tomorrow on the ring -> (Passive) You are hurt tomorrow by mike Tyson on the ring.

The active version is itself not exactly right. The use of the simple present with 'tomorrow' is used for actions that are scheduled in advance. It's OK to say "I leave for Paris tomorrow", but to tell someone "Mike kills you tomorrow" — as if this were a scheduled event that both parties agreed to in advance — makes no sense. The same is true of "Mike hurts you tomorrow".

Even if the active form makes sense, as in "Mike takes the bus to work tomorrow", the passive is almost never used to express the same idea. "The bus is taken to work tomorrow by Mike", while technically grammatically correct, is a horrible sentence. It's not at all idiomatic. A native speaker would not say it that way. My recommendation is that if you want to use the present tense to indicate a future event, make sure that the event is scheduled, and don't use the passive. Also note that this usage of the simple present is not very common, so be careful not to overuse it.

morchit can be an object adjective

There is no such thing as an object adjective. I think you mean something else, probably "predicate adjective".

morchAre these ok then in spoken or written English?-You are killed= it means you may be killed in the future-He is already killed= he has been killed already-He is killed tomorrow= he may be killed tomorrow

-You are killed= it means you may be killed in the future No. It doesn't mean anything about the future — only about the present. Because of this you have to consider: If someone is killed, it makes no sense to talk to them at all because they can't hear you; they are dead.

-He is already killed= he has been killed already Maybe you could say this, but it's somewhat unidiomatic. More likely it's going to be He has already been killed. It simply means that he is already dead and does not have to be killed again — which is a somewhat strange thing to say, of course.

-He is killed tomorrow= he may be killed tomorrow No. This is absolutely impossible. The explanation has already been given above. The passive of the present simple does not work for scheduled future events. Instead you can say He will be killed tomorrow. Besides, "may" has nothing to do with it. "may" just means "maybe will": He may be killed tomorrow = Maybe someone will kill him tomorrow, and maybe not.

CJ

Are the following sentences correct grammatically? Just English speakers please answer, tnx

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions