Please check out my sentences.
- Why do I get this all the time?
- Why am I getting this …?
- Why I am getting this …?
- Why have I been getting this?
Thanks
All but 3 are grammatically acceptable and correct questions. It (3) should be like 4: Why am I getting this …? However, in spoken grammar 3 is okay.
Thank you for your suggestion.
What about no.4? Is it okay?
Thank you once again.
PS:
Is this sentence okay?
“What I have inferred from your words is that “Modi” is innocent whereas Indian people are responsible for this blockade on Nepal.”
Sentence No.4 is correct as I have mentioned twice there.
“What I have inferred from your words is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is innocent whereas Indian people are responsible for this blockade on Nepal.” (If you mean the Indian PM and if you want to say so.)
Yes, about the Indian PM.
Thanks a lot. I think I have improved my English and started making less mistakes.
“I think I have improved my English and started making fewer (few) mistakes.”
(FEW/FEWER/FEWEST is associated with COUNTABLE nouns and LITTLE/LESS/LEAST with UNCOUNTABLE nouns. Also, MANY/MORE/MOST goes with countable and MUCH/MORE/MOST with uncountable. MISTAKES being plural few/fewer is suitable.
Alternatively you could say: I think I … started being less erroneous/mistaken.)
Not in first language English speaking nations.
You don’t need to use the full title and name as suggested. It is standard practice for the more important politicians to be referred to be surname only, providing the person would not be mixed up with someone else. In this case, he wouldn’t. However, you should not use inverted commas.
"What I have inferred from your words is that Modi is innocent whereas (the) Indian people … "
Depending on exactly when this is said, it strikes me that you may also have the wrong tense and ‘What I infer from…’ may be more appropriate.
You have chosen to use ‘blackade’ in a strange way by linking it to ‘on Nepal’. I would expect one of these:
responsible for the block on Nepal.
responsible for the blockade at/on the Nepalese border.
responsible for the blockade in Nepal.
Noren, I would strongly suggest you avoid such an alternative! It does not sound at all natural.
Dear Anglophile,
Thank you once again for your suggestions.
Bees
Thank you very much indeed for the correction and advice.
I don’t think you are right. See this conversation I had recently with an American lady:
I: I’m flattered by your compliments.
She: You’re flattered? Really? No, I mean it.
I am right. It’s not surprise that you think otherwise.
Perhaps you can explain what on earth the conversation you recount has to do with the original sentence?
Nobody else has raised a question about its intelligibility. Even a child can understand it. But you are expected to more easily and quickly comprehend it as you claim to be native speaker.
Here goes my explanation: A sentence with the subject-verb order can become a question with proper stress and intonation in spoken contexts and under spoken grammar. You understand?
Do not misguide others for Heaven’s sake! There is difference in referring to a person and it varies from culture to culture. Asian culture, as you know, is different from European. Even then, you don’t say Elizabeth for Queen Elizabeth, do you? After all, the poster has not written anything journalistic. I don’t think he is a mediaperson either. Our practice is to pay the minimum respect (at least for once) in such contexts.
What’s going on here? Is it (so) because of my post?
Anyway, it’s one of the (many) ways to further our English.
Don’t worry, Noren. This is not a new thing. Have a nice day!
Just because no one has raised a question, doesn’t mean it can be understood.#
Yes - I understand that there is no connection between the CONTEXT of what is said in the original with the CONTEXT of your example, therefore there is no link between them from which you can devise such a statement as the original is acceptable.
I also note your typical sarcasm. Please think about that next time you decide to make an abusive post indicating my ‘faults’ as you see them through your ever-thickening blinkers.
[quote=“Anglophile”]
Do not misguide others for Heaven’s sake! There is difference in referring to a person and it varies from culture to culture. Asian culture, as you know, is different from European.
[quote]
It doesn’t matter. The fact is, this is standard practice and YPOU are the person who is misguiding others in insisting on the full title when speaking in English.
I would refer to James Cameron, Prime Minsister of the UK, as ‘Cameron’.
I would refer to King Henry VII, historical king of England as ‘Henry VII’.
I would refer to Queen Elizabeth I, historical queen of England as ‘Elizabeth II’.