An English sentence grammar problem Prawn comes in to help

The sentence itself is a bit problematic, it should be there were more than 2000 people (died) in the earthquakeIf the present participle dying is used, it denotes the process from a dying state to complete death. This sentence should be used died, which is the abbreviated form of the definite clause there were more than 2000 people that died in the earthquake, that can be omitted.

Of course, there are more that 2000 people (dying) in the earthquake also makes sense, but it is particularly awkward, saying that "more than 2000 people are dying in **, but the heart has not stopped beating".

The present participle dying indicates that the active carry out is the definite of the people. The past participle indicates passive completion, while die is an intransitive verb and generally does not use passive, so it cannot be used.

What has already happened, do not stress that it is ongoing. Therefore, in the past tense, the state is described.

dying

Now the word breaker is actively performed.

As follows: This sentence is incorrect, and the coordinating conjunction and in front of he only should be removed, otherwise, this is not a sentence, just an infinitive phrase. The following is an analysis of the sentence structure after dropping the and:

1. to let them ..can understand them is an infinitive phrase as an adverbial for the purpose, where. so...that...The that clause in is the consequential adverbial clause.

2. he, only in ..really matter is the main clause, where he is the subject, onlys is the adverbial, in his own limited field is the place adverbial, actually is the interpolation, oftens is the frequency adverbial, intentionally is the way adverbial, tends is the predicate, to discourage....

is an infinitive phrase as an object (where to think...).is an adverbial with an infinitive, that really matter is a restrictive definite clause. )

This sentence is translated as follows:

In order to make them seem so complex that only the "expert" can understand them, he is, in fact, in his own field, and often deliberately, often discourages people from placing too much trust in their own abilities to consider issues that are indeed of vital importance.

The backbone of this sentence is he actually-and often intentionally—tends to discourage people from trusting their own capacity, the subject should be he, and the predicate verb should tend to discourage....from

The first sentence is an infinitive lead purpose adverbial with a so....that, structure, means so much so that it ......

The object after it is people, and the infinitive phrase to think about those problems is used as the postposition of capacity, and the definite clause that follows that is used to modify problems.

After the analysis, I hope it will be helpful to you, welcome

To add,In fact, to the back is all modified chances.,Then you can omit it before and don't look at it.。

more than must be with the object, otherwise the sentence is incomplete, therefore, it is an object clause.

Discuss the issue of introductory words.

In fact, according to the meaning of the sentence, the space can be filled in the things (that), and the sentence is smooth then that can be removed.

In addition to what, there is also which

Which is only in the choice, so use what

This type of question focuses on the analysis of the components.

What is life like? It's a journey with endless challenges (with followed by adverbials), how about those challenges? It allows us to get what we don't have at the moment.

Good luck in your studies!

Analyze the role of what, where, who or that in the sentence in the sentence, first analyze what components these words play in the sentence in the sentence, in summary, the first where acts as the area of the definite clause is to explain those areas, the definite clause does not affect the main component of the sentence for supplementary explanation, delete the rest of the sentence The sentence component is complete. For example, another area must show permanent gratitude to parents

The second sentence is also used in the middle of the definite clause", "separated into a non-restrictive definite clause, the most obvious difference between restrictive and non-restrictive is that the restrictive definite clause part that leads can be omitted. Fourth, the third is the same.

The fourth sentence that should be a fixed sentence form not that...

The fifth sentence know as a verb, followed by a what as the object of know, constitutes a verb-object structure and cannot be omitted.

join with you . . .

today today.

in what...what leads the clause to refer to what to participate in ...

will go down in history.

as...Steer.

as the greatest demonstration as... The biggest demonstrations.

for freedom.

in the history of our nation.

Translation: It is a pleasure for me to join you today in the largest demonstration in the history of our country and will go down in history in the name of freedom.

It is nothing more than a small definite clause, and what is followed by the leading clause, connected by many prepositions).

i am happy to join with you today //in what will go down in history / as the greatest demonstration for freedom / in the history of our nation.

It is an honour for me to be with you today to witness the moment that will go down in history as the greatest declaration of freedom in the history of our country.

What will go down what leads to the object clause, is the object of the preposition in.

Hello landlord, I'll talk about my own views (but I'm not a master), the landlord thinks it's reasonable to adopt it:

First of all, the predicate of firms is gives, I think it's wrong, from a grammatical point of view, firms plural form, how can the predicate add s? From the point of view of meaning, there is a provide in front and a give in the back, so the real subject should be belief.

But I found another problem, belief that the providing structure is absolutely wrong, or it uses belief that provides, which leads to a definite clause; Either use belief providing, and never add that. If that's the case, I'd prefer the first one, that provides after gives doesn't seem harmonious, and if it still feels awkward, then add that before gives.

The above is a personal opinion, and the landlord is requested to consider it carefully

The predicate of firms is gives, which I think is wrong, and the subject should belief.