0
Joey_five Posted 20 years ago
Grammar
married vs was married to
Hi all,
Are the following sentences all correct? If yes, is there any difference in meaning?
a) Peter married Jane in 2000.
b) Jane married Peter in 2000.
c) Peter was married to Jane in 2000.
d) Jane was married to Peter in 2000.
thank you in advance.
Are the following sentences all correct? If yes, is there any difference in meaning?
a) Peter married Jane in 2000.
b) Jane married Peter in 2000.
c) Peter was married to Jane in 2000.
d) Jane was married to Peter in 2000.
thank you in advance.
Top answer
They are all correct. It depends on what you want to emphasize. " "Oh, it couldn't have been Mary!
- They are all correct.
- It depends on what you want to emphasize.
- " "Oh, it couldn't have been Mary!
- ) Peter and Jane got married in 2000 or Peter and Jane married in 2000 both say that the ceremony took place in 2000.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
They are all correct. It depends on what you want to emphasize. For example: "Remember when Peter and Mary came to visit us in the summer of 2000?" "Oh, it couldn't have been Mary! Peter was married to Jane in 2000."
You can also say "Peter and Jane were married in 2000" which could say either that's when the event took place or that was the state of their marriage (as in the example abo
You can also say "Peter and Jane were married in 2000" which could say either that's when the event took place or that was the state of their marriage (as in the example abo
0
Related Questions