Grammatically correct or not?

Question

Hi teachers,Is this sentence below grammatically correct? New technological bulbs save money in the long run  by simply following a few energy efficiency rules.My teacher insists that this sentence is grammatically incorrect. I don't understand why? He didn't explain the reason. What is wrong with this sentence?Thank you.

Sijay · Accepted Answer

The sentence is structurally correct, but there are some phrasings that are unusual and feel incorrect. Technological for instance is not usually used that way.

The following sounds more natural to me:

New bulb technology saves money in the long run by following a few simple energy efficiency rules.

It's better here to refer to the technology of the bulb, rather than the bulb [which is technological].

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you.

Some of my friends cliam that this sentence is meaningless. They say lambs do not follow rules, only humans can do it. Do they right?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

They say lambs do not follow rules, only humans can do it. Are they right?

This sentence is grammatical and meaningful.
They say lambs do not follow rules; only humans can.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you for your answer and correction. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Sijay · Answer

AnonymousThey say lambs do not follow rules, only humans can [do it]. Are they right?

This is a fair criticism. But many verbs which seem as if only humans could do, can sometimes be applied to non-human or inanimate things. A ball obeys the laws of physics, for instance. A road can follow a riverbank.

Sometimes this to shorten a more complete phrase that does include a human. You could say:

This writing follows the rules of English grammar.

when strictly speaking you mean:

The writer [of this writing] follows the rules of English grammar.

In the bulb example you might say:

New bulb technology saves money in the long run because the inventors have followed a few simple energy efficiency rules.

Anonymous · Answer

AnonymousSome of my friends cliam that this sentence is meaningless. They say lambs do not follow rules, only humans can do it. Do they right?

I have to agree with your friends. Usually, context with " in the long run " has the connotation of higher initial cost but the benefit, which will outweight the cost, will be realized in time. So my read on your sentence should be something like this:
Even though the initial cost of the new energy saving LED light is expensive, this technology will save consumers a lot of money in the long run.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousThey say lambs do not follow rules

Given the context, I think you mean 'lamps', though 'bulbs' would have been even clearer.

CJ

AlpheccaStars · Answer

CalifJimGiven the context, I think you mean 'lamps'

I read it as "lambs," baby sheep.
Sheep are not capable of making rules; they follow their instincts, and the herd.
Sometimes humans exhibit herd behavior, but they certainly do make rules (lots of them), and sometimes choose to follow them, or not.

CalifJim · Answer

AlpheccaStarsI read it as "lambs," baby sheep.

So did I. At first. But then I looked at the original sentence again and realized that 'bulb' and 'lamp' might be mistaken for synonyms by the OP and/or his friends.

New technological bulbs (=lamps) save money in the long run by simply following a few energy efficiency rules.

Recall that "lamps (bulbs) don't follow rules" was a criticism of the sentence.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Sorry, lamb is my bad. Lamps or bulbs.

So, what do you think? Can we say like this?

New technological bulbs save money in the long run by simply following a few energy efficiency rules.

What about figurative or metaphorical meaning?

Grammatically correct or not?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions