0
Khoshtip Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
as if conditional form
In the sentence below I think, was should be replaced by were. Am I right please?
It will even access there as if the location three doubles before what it points to was part of our allocation.
It will even access there as if the location three doubles before what it points to was part of our allocation.
Top answer
That is the least of the problems. The sentence as a whole is not comprehensible.
- That is the least of the problems.
- The sentence as a whole is not comprehensible.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
12 Answers
0
That is the least of the problems. The sentence as a whole is not comprehensible.
00
That is part of a paragraph. Please read link below. It's at the bottom of first paragraph of that page:
http://books.google.com/books?id=We21AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=programming%20principle%20and%20practice&pg=PA595#v=onepage&q&f=tru
http://books.google.com/books?id=We21AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=programming%20principle%20and%20practice&pg=PA595#v=onepage&q&f=tru
00
OK, I see now what it means. "three doubles" means "three units of storage for 'double' variables". This is virtually impossible to understand out of context. Even in the book they use coloured text to help readers parse it. "access there" feels slightly awkward too, but that is not in the original text.
To answer your original question, "were" and "was" are both acceptable; "were" is mor
To answer your original question, "were" and "was" are both acceptable; "were" is mor
00
Thanks. But why was is also acceptable and formal? I have learned in as if/though conditional forms, we always use were rather than was.
00
khoshtipI have learned in as if/though conditional forms, we always use were rather than was.Although "were" may be taught in textbooks, in reality people may also use "was".
khoshtipBut why was is also acceptable and formal?I said that "were" was more formal, not "was".
00
GPYI said that "were" was more formal, not "was".Yes. That is "was" is also formal but "were" is more formal. Please note that more is comparative adjective.
00
khoshtipThat is "was" is also formal but "were" is more formal.I didn't quite mean to imply that.
00
That is the sin of the more comparative adjective not you my friend!
I consider the word "was" acceptable but informal and the word "were" acceptable and formal in that text. Right?
I consider the word "was" acceptable but informal and the word "were" acceptable and formal in that text. Right?
00
khoshtipThat is the sin of the more comparative adjective not you my friend!If you say that A is more X than B, it does not necessarily mean that A is X to any degree. For example, "She is more enthusiastic than me" does not imply that I am enthusiastic. Actually, I could be unenthusiastic.
khoshtipI consider the word "was" accept
00
GPY"She is more enthusiastic than me" does not imply that I am enthusiastic.So why you wouldn't say, "She is enthusiastic but not me"?
0
Related Questions