0
Ốc Giác Posted 13 years ago
Grammar

Verb tense confusion.

Hi everyone,
I'm not a native English speaker and I'm working for an IT-related company. This week, I sent my weekly report to my boss and he sent me this corrected version of my report:

"This week, I have partially created a new architecture which supports Linux kernel 3.0. Everything went goes well except that vmlinux.lds got has a syntax error which ceased that puts an end to the entire compilation process. Currently, I'm working on fixing this error behind which I suspect based on my suspection that the cross-compiler was can be the culprit. Next week, I will carry on this bug-hunting process."

So I have some questions regarding the above report:
 - Those things in the report are the events in the past, why did he changed my verb tense into simple present tense ?
 - I have looked up the word "cease" in the dictionary and it has the following explanation:  "to cease = to bring an activity or action to an end". Why did my boss replace "cease" with "to put an end to" ? Isn't it the same thing ?
 - I can't see why my relative clause "behind which I suspect ..." is wrong. Could someone point out my mistakes ? 
  

Top answer

c Giác I sent my weekly report to my boss I don't know how you are going to deal with this, but your boss is an idiot. Every change he made is worse than what you wrote first. 0.

  • c Giác I sent my weekly report to my boss I don't know how you are going to deal with this, but your boss is an idiot.
  • Every change he made is worse than what you wrote first.
  • 0.
  • lds [got / had] a syntax error which stopped the entire compilation process.
  • Currently, I'm working on fixing this error, which I suspect is being caused b y the cross-compiler.
Free · every Monday

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
?c Giác I sent my weekly report to my boss
I don't know how you are going to deal with this, but your boss is an idiot. Every change he made is worse than what you wrote first.

This week, I created part of a new architecture which supports Linux kernel 3.0. Everything went well except that vmlinux.lds [got / had] a syntax error which
0
Thank you, CalifJim. I really appreciate your help. However, I still have a point about which I'm really confused: Is the relative clause "behind which I suspect ...." wrong ? If yes then I would like to know why. 

P/S: suspection is a noun (obsolete) (source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspection). 
0
?c GiácIs the relative clause "behind which I suspect ...." wrong ? If yes then I would like to know why.
I'm working on fixing this error behind which I suspect that the cross-compiler was the culprit.

Yes, it is wrong, in one sense of "wrong". Strictly speaking it is grammatically correct, but it is so awkward and unidiomatic that it cannot
0
What a great explanation you gave me. I didn't pay attention to its figurative meaning when composing that sentence. Next time, I will avoid this kind of complex structure when writing a figurative sentence. Once again, thank you, CalifJim, for detailed explanation which clarifies a lot of things for me. Have a nice day.

Related Questions