Is the statement in pic related grammatically correct? Perfect English speakers please help. Thanks

Is the statement in pic related grammatically correct? Perfect English speakers please help. Thanks.

Other urls found in this thread:

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/wait-or-wait-for
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's an incomplete sentence.

It is ish. No direct mistakes but it's incomplete

>incomplete
What made you think that? And what should be done to make it a complete sentence if it's incomplete?

It's a dependent clause. It's not incorrect so far, aside from the period [or full stop] that should be a comma followed by an independent clause.

Sounds like a tfw Tumblrpost

Seems correct to me but a bit jumbled. And when your love is strong, you don't wait. You conquer, you queerbasket

Let me break this down with another example - I'm pretty sure it's incomplete.

"When you go to the store"

Is an incomplete sentence.

"When you go to the store, get some eggs"

Is complete. This is because the subject, "you" is implied. The sentence can read:

"When you go to the store, (you) get some eggs"

Where "you" is the subject and "get" is the predicate verb.

So the whole "When your love for number one..." is a phrase, not a complete sentence.

Can you show an example with the same sentence?

Please rectify the original post and tell me the way you think it should be so I can know what actually went wrong.

#
#
Not him but I'm a language autist. The sentence in the OP should have been followed by a comma and something else, like "you're a cuck". Since the clause that you've attached "you're a cuck" to is a statement of time, you need to make it sit before or after something else for it to make sense

>Veeky Forums - Science and Math
Where the fuck is english in these two words?

But linguistics is a science you faggot

"This is what happens when your love is so strong that you wait..."

Or as said,

"when your love is so strong that you wait..., you're a cuck"

"You" is the subject, "are" is the verb.

The phrase 'in pic related' is not grammatically correct.

t. STEAM faggot

What?

Now? See pic related.

But it is

Elaborate please.

In addition to what's been said, if you're not actually speaking to someone, "your", "you", and "you've" should be replaced by "one's", "one", and "one has" respectively. With those changes, "wait" would, of course, change to "waits".

Are both the sentences in this post pic's grammatically correct? Or did you at least understand what the writer is trying convey?

The first one is correct. Using "wait" instead of "wait for" is a common mistake that you should avoid.

Are both the sentences in this post's pic grammatically correct? Or did you at least understand what the writer is trying convey? Can you make it even better sentence without changing it if you've understood what the writer has conveyed?

Thanks mate I hope that isn't an incomplete sentence or grammatically incorrect. I'll avoid the "for" in there.

It's not incomplete. "When you wait..." is a statement of time, a dependent clause which acts like an object of time alongside the clause it depends on ("you...").

Also, you're not supposed to avoid the "for", you actually have to use it
>wait years
is incorrect, whereas
>wait FOR years
is correct.

Sorry but I seriously can't get what your saying. Hold up, I'll write it down again…

"When your love for number one is so strong, you wait years to own that one thing you've wanted to own all along."

Now is that grammatically correct?

You posted this on Veeky Forums too

It is not incomplete and it follows the right structure BUT it's not correct. "wait years" is wrong. You're supposed to use "for. See

They gave the better answers because this is the wrong board.

Look, I never actually had an iPhone. It is not like I didn't wanted to but I love the number 7 more. So I'll be buying one in a few days so I need a caption for the pic I'll be posting on IG. So that is about it.

'Pic related' is internet slang. 'In this pic' is how you would say it IRL.

Using 'one' instead of 'you' sounds very formal. I wouldn't do it unless you're writing a paper or something.

'Wait' without 'for' is fine in spoken English.

Improve your English, donkey.

Correction:
>They give better answers because this is the wrong board.

Well, not always.

>'Wait' without 'for' is fine in spoken English.
wtf are you talking about? stupid spic.

Tell me if "actually" and "that one thing" are useless in that sentence? Also should there be a comma after "strong?"

Which one sounds better?
"When your love for number one is so strong, you actually wait for years to own that one thing you've wanted to own all along."

Or

"When your love for number one is so strong, you wait for years to own what you've wanted all along."

>I've waited a long time for this

If someone said this to me IRL, I wouldn't think it sounded strange.

kys retard

hahahaha seriously though, I think the user fell off on his head during birth.

Objectively false

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/wait-or-wait-for

OP specifically requested native speakers only btw

Both sentences are correct, though I'd say that using "that one thing" shows how important the thing you're referring to is (as opposed to just saying "what you...")
I hadn't thought about that. It sounds a bit weird to me, and I've never seen it used without "for", but you have a point.

So which sentence is better and absolutely correct in this post according to you?

THE number one

I'm - I forgot to mention that there should be a comma after "strong" in your example. The lack of that particular comma changes everything.

I'm - Hello?

>I need a caption for the pic I'll be posting on IG

Yes, the first sentence you posted is technically not grammatically complete on its own, being as it is an independent clause. However, clearly what is meant is,

When your love for number one is so strong that you wait years to own what you've wanted all along, [you feel the feeling I am implying by sharing this picture.]

Ending a sentence without finishing it is called aposiopesis, and has been around and documented for 3,000 years. Leaving out words that are implicit is called elipsis, and has been around for comparably long. So you can always claim that you wrote a grammatically complete sentence and then stylized it using perfectly acceptable and established practices if for some strange reason you really want to feel like you've written a grammatical sentence. If instead you just want to communicate effectively, you should refer back to the questions \lit\ was asking about whether or not this really is a worthwhile sentence (which for IG honestly is fine)

Leave the first sentence. Is this grammatically correct?

"When your love for number one is so strong, you actually wait for years to own that one thing you've wanted to own all along."

I may remove "actually" not sure but I may.

- Bump

Sure, fine. I feel like you're kind of missing the point I was trying to make, though.

Anyways, better to bump this on lit than here if you've still got stuff to say about it.

Is this an incomplete sentence?


"Never go shopping for shit when you’re high."

Guys, guys how about this?

"You know your love for number 1 is strong when you wait for years to own what you've wanted all along."

You love to urinate that much?

I'll urinate in your face, peasant.

This is an adjunct, which is usually not a full sentence. It can be a full sentence in the context of fragment ellipsis, like as an answer to a question. For example, this would be fine as the answer to "When will I finally pass English class?" In that context there may be a null matrix clause whose semantic content is supplied pragmatically.

Other than that, adjuncts must be subordinate to a matrix clause. The reason for this is a sentence must be headed by a particular complementizer which isn't the head of adjuncts.

new user. are you a native speaker of english? you definitely DON'T need to say "wait for," why do you even think "wait" without "for" is wrong? did you have an english teacher at some point who told you that? if so, they were wrong.