0
Rathony Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
Do below 3 sentences have the same meaning?
Can you see and if the below 3 sentences have the same meaning? Differences are in front of the vorb, broke / breaking, i.e. (1) and it broke, (2) which broke, and (3) breaking.
Thanks a million!!!
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water, and it broke out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water, which broke out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water breaking out of cliffs and crater walls, carrying sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporating.
Thanks a million!!!
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water, and it broke out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water, which broke out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water breaking out of cliffs and crater walls, carrying sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporating.
Top answer
Dear Rathony, 1. is OK if you change "it" for "they". 2.
- Dear Rathony, 1.
- is OK if you change "it" for "they".
- 2.
- is good, and more natural than 1.
- 3.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Dear Rathony,
1. is OK if you change "it" for "they".
2. is good, and more natural than 1.
3. is wrong because you shouldn't use a participle in place of a relative pronoun when starting a defining relative clause; however, it's a common mistake, even among native speakers.
Kind regards, Michael
1. is OK if you change "it" for "they".
2. is good, and more natural than 1.
3. is wrong because you shouldn't use a participle in place of a relative pronoun when starting a defining relative clause; however, it's a common mistake, even among native speakers.
Kind regards, Michael
00
Since it's the water that that is being described, not the deposits, "they" isn't right, but even so, the first sentence is very awkward.
I don't think you need to say "liquid water." It's water unless it's ice or steam or vapor.
Does water "break out"?
These deposits were left by water that seeped from cliff and crater walls, carrying sediment downhill through the gullies,
I don't think you need to say "liquid water." It's water unless it's ice or steam or vapor.
Does water "break out"?
These deposits were left by water that seeped from cliff and crater walls, carrying sediment downhill through the gullies,
00
BarbaraPAI don't think you need to say "liquid water."True, if the context is on earth.
On Mars, there is no present-day liquid water on the surface, so articles usually use "liquid water" in the context of Mars' geology.
00
You need to set the second main clause in a geologically-appropriate time frame relative to the first.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water. Some 2.5 billion years ago the water came out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
These deposits were believed to be residue of liquid water. Some 2.5 billion years ago the water came out of cliffs and crater walls, carried sediment downhill through the gullies, and later evaporated.
0
Related Questions