The movie which acclaimed several awards now on Channel 1.

Question

I believe the below sentence is incorrect. Shouldn't it be ''...was acclaimed with...''?The movie which acclaimed several awards now on Channel 1.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Hi Jackson,

Right. It should be passive.

This sounds like an advertising banner, not a sentence. I'd probably say "acclaimed by."

If you were planning to turn it into a sentence, other repairs would be necessary.

- A.

Jackson6612 · Answer

AvangiThis sounds like an advertising banner, not a sentence. I'd probably say "acclaimed by."

If you were planning to turn it into a sentence, other repairs would be necessary.

Hi Avangi,

Thank you for the help. Why isn't it a sentence? ''The movie which was acclaimed by several awards now (can be watched) on Channel 1.'' Do you consider it a sentence now? If you do, then I think even without the part in parenthesis the line of text can be considered a complete sentence. Because now on Channel 1 actually means that it can be watched on Channel 1 and this phrase is often used to advertise the screening of movies on TV channels.

Shilpanaughty · Answer

Jackson6612
AvangiThis sounds like an advertising banner, not a sentence. I'd probably say "acclaimed by."

If you were planning to turn it into a sentence, other repairs would be necessary.

Hi Avangi,

Thank you for the help. Why isn't it a sentence? The movie which was acclaimed by several awards now (can be watched) on Channel 1. Do you consider it a sentence now? If you do, then I think even without the part in parenthesis the line of text can be considered a complete sentence. Because now on Channel 1 actually means that it can be watched on Channel 1 and this phrase is often used to advertise the screening of movies on TV channels.

Can we write it as- The movie which has acclaimed several awards can be watched on Channel 1. Kindly let me know if it is correct if not which portion is incorrect. Thanx in anticipation.

Avangi · Answer

ShilpanaughtyCan we write it as- The movie which has acclaimed several awards can be watched on Channel 1. Kindly let me know if it is correct if not which portion is incorrect.

Jackson6612 Why isn't it a sentence? The movie which was acclaimed by several awards now (can be watched) on Channel 1. Do you consider it a sentence now? If you do, then I think even without the part in parenthesis the line of text can be considered a complete sentence. Because now on Channel 1 actually means that it can be watched on Channel 1 and this phrase is often used to advertise the screening of movies on TV channels.

Sorry, guys, I missed this!

The Trouble With Cinderella coming soon to a theater near you!

The Trouble With Cinderella now on channel 14!

These are not sentences because they have no verb.

They may easily be made into sentences by inserting "is" after the title, or by removing the exclamation points at the end and adding ", stinks!"

- or by inserting "can be watched," as you both suggest.

There are many things which may be omitted from a sentence, but the verb is not one of them. (Note that "coming" is a verbal, not a verb.)

We seem to be still struggling with the verb "to acclaim." You may walk up on the stage and claim an award, but you cannot acclaim an award.

The problem is contextual. People, possibly via the media, acclaim things, such as works of art - or acts of bravery - or great performances. [Y]

Avangi · Answer

Edit.

Well, I suppose it's possible to acclaim an award. Sometimes when the Nobel prizes are given out, we wonder what those judges could have been thinking of - like, didn't Henry the K once get the peace prize?

But then sometimes everyone agrees with the judges' choice, and the announcement is met with acclamation.

But a movie can't acclaim itself!

Jackson6612 · Answer

AvangiThey may easily be made into sentences by inserting "is" after the title, or by removing the exclamation points at the end and adding ", stinks!"

I couldn't understand what you were saying. Please clarify.

AvangiThe problem is contextual. People, possibly via the media, acclaim things, such as works of art - or acts of bravery - or great performances.

You used hyphens ''-''. I would have used commas instead. Would that have made any difference?

AvangiWell, I suppose it's possible to acclaim an award. Sometimes when the Nobel prizes are given out, we wonder what those judges could have been thinking of - like, didn't Henry the K once get the peace prize?

Was the the really required in front of Nobel prizes above. Nobel prize is a recognised noun and I believe there is no need of using the unless you are talking about some specific category of the prizes.

I would have written ''...we wonder what those judges would have been thinking...''. Is my way also correct? Please let me know.

Thank you for the help. I wish you good health.

Avangi · Answer

The Trouble With Cinderella IS coming soon to a theater near you!

The Trouble With Cinderella IS now on channel 14!

The Trouble With Cinderella, coming soon to a theater near you, STINKS !

The Trouble With Cinderella, now on channel 14, STINKS !

By adding these verbs, these "banners" are now sentences.

The movie which was acclaimed by several awards now (can be watched) on Channel 1. Do you consider it a sentence now? If you do, then I think even without the part in parenthesis the line of text can be considered a complete sentence. Because now on Channel 1 actually means that it can be watched on Channel 1 and this phrase is often used to advertise the screening of movies on TV channels.

The term "sentence" is often used casually, in a loose way. But here we sort of consider it a technical grammatical term. To say that a phrase really means a certain idea, which could be converted into a formal sentence, is not a very compelling argument for a scholar.

You used hyphens -. I would have used commas instead. Would that have made any difference?

I think of them as "dashes." Commas would have done the job. I just used the dashes to suggest that I'm "thoughtfully" substituting one idea for another - rather than making a list.

Was the the really required in front of Nobel prizes above. Nobel prize is a recognised noun and I believe there is no need of using the unless you are talking about some specific category of the prizes.

No, I don't think it was really required. In my mind, I've always thought of the announcing of these awards as something of an annual occasion - like the running of the bulls. I think of a particular lot of prizes to be given out at a given season.

I would have written ...we wonder what those judges would have been thinking.... Is my way also correct?

To borrow a phrase from one of our members, The collocation is "What could you have been thinking?" That is, "Are you crazy??"

I would not use "would," but I could understand it possibly when you feel there's a logical explanation, and you're trying to get into someone's head. Perhaps someone accidently drives off a cliff. "I wonder what he would have been thinking." That is, the reasonable thought exists. With "could," you assume it's unreasonable - at least, with this particular collocation.

Thanks for the good wishes. May you have the same.

Jackson6612 · Answer

AvangiThe Trouble With Cinderella, coming soon to a theater near you, STINKS !

The Trouble With Cinderella, now on channel 14, STINKS !

What does stinks mean in the above context?

AvangiThe term "sentence" is often used casually, in a loose way. But here we sort of consider it a technical grammatical term. To say that a phrase really means a certain idea, which could be converted into a formal sentence, is not a very compelling argument for a scholar.

technical means relating to small exact details or rules that say how a system should work.

Is word exact really necessary? What additional meaning does it add to the definition?

Are the given sentences correct?
1: This is not a compelling evidence for a police to arrest him.
2: The argument you have put forward in support of your opinion is not a compelling one for a scholar like me.

AvangiI think of them as "dashes." Commas would have done the job. I just used the dashes to suggest that I'm "thoughtfully" substituting one idea for another - rather than making a list.

You said: The problem is contextual. People, possibly via the media, acclaim things, such as works of art - or acts of bravery - or great performances.
If you hadn't used ''or's'' above, then I don't think this would be called substituting one idea for another. Without ''or's'' it would simply mean that you are thoughtfully placing one idea after another. Am I correct?

AvangiIn my mind, I've always thought of the announcing of these awards as something of an annual occasion - like the running of the bulls. I think of a particular lot of prizes to be given out at a given season.

Frankly speaking, I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you justifying the use of the in your sentence?

A hyphen is used to represent a strong pause as compared to a comma but less stronger than a period. Am I correct? Should I have used less strong than less stronger?

AvangiI would not use "would," but I could understand it possibly when you feel there's a logical explanation, and you're trying to get into someone's head. Perhaps someone accidently drives off a cliff. "I wonder what he would have been thinking." That is, the reasonable thought exists. With "could," you assume it's unreasonable - at least, with this particular collocation.

I would have written but I could possibly understand it use when you feel. Is my way also correct?

I would have written at least, in the light of this particular collocation. Do you find it right?

Thank you very much for the help. I hope I'm not infuriating you with all these questions which may seem very trivial and stupid to you.

Avangi · Answer

Jackson6612
AvangiThe Trouble With Cinderella, coming soon to a theater near you, STINKS !
The Trouble With Cinderella, now on channel 14, STINKS !
What does stinks mean in the above context? We sometimes hold our noses to indicate our displeasure with a performance. [N] (It smells bad.)
AvangiThe term "sentence" is often used casually, in a loose way. But here we sort of consider it a technical grammatical term. To say that a phrase really means a certain idea, which could be converted into a formal sentence, is not a very compelling argument for a scholar.
technical means relating to small exact details or rules that say how a system should work. Is word exact really necessary? What additional meaning does it add to the definition? Technical things (the technique of a skater, fine tuning an engine, defining a compound complex sentence) usually deal in precision or exactness. It comes with the territory.
Are the given sentences correct?
1: This is not a compelling evidence for a police to arrest him. This evidence is not compelling enough to serve as the basis for an arrest by the police. (The evidence is not sufficiently compelling.)
2: The argument you have put forward in support of your opinion is not a compelling one for a scholar like me. This is okay.
AvangiI think of them as "dashes." Commas would have done the job. I just used the dashes to suggest that I'm "thoughtfully" substituting one idea for another - rather than making a list.
You said: The problem is contextual. People, possibly via the media, acclaim things, such as works of art - or acts of bravery - or great performances.
If you hadn't used ''or's'' above, then I don't think this would be called substituting one idea for another. Without ''or's'' it would simply mean that you are thoughtfully placing one idea after another. Am I correct? I would agree.
AvangiIn my mind, I've always thought of the announcing of these awards as something of an annual occasion - like the running of the bulls. I think of a particular lot of prizes to be given out at a given season.
Frankly speaking, I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you justifying the use of the in your sentence? Yes, I am. Why don't we just say "the running of bulls"? Are they special bulls? The running of the bulls which run every year at this time. The announcement of the Nobel prizes which are given out every year at this time.
A hyphen is used to represent a strong pause as compared to a comma but less stronger than a period. Am I correct? Yes. Should I have used less strong rather than less stronger? Yes. (It would be a little better if you could make your comparisons of the hyphen to the comma and the period a bit more parallel in structure. (It's a dash, by the way.)
AvangiI would not use "would," but I could understand it possibly when you feel there's a logical explanation, and you're trying to get into someone's head. Perhaps someone accidently drives off a cliff. "I wonder what he would have been thinking." That is, the reasonable thought exists. With "could," you assume it's unreasonable - at least, with this particular collocation.
I would have written but I could possibly understand it its use when you feel. Is my way also correct? Sure.
I would have written at least, in the light of this particular collocation. Do you find it right? No. "when used in connection with this particular collocation." (Don't bring out that ****** list of "with" usages!)
Thank you very much for the help. I hope I'm not infuriating you with all these questions which may seem very trivial and stupid to you. Not at all.

The movie which acclaimed several awards now on Channel 1.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions