Author Topic: Grammer issue with death (Read 47029 times)

bacon665 · « **on:** May 20, 2009, 05:53:15 pm »

When humans get killed by a swarm it says
"<player> was hunted down by the swarm"
Which breaks subject/verb agreement and should be changed to "<player> was hunt down by the swarm"

your face · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2009, 06:30:29 pm »

Never noticed that before. Hah.

Archangel · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2009, 06:56:04 pm »

hunted sound better

player1 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2009, 08:24:10 pm »

a few things

1) ppl who want to be grammar nazis should learn to spell "grammar"

2) no, it does not, u r wrong, it's perfectly fine as it is ("was hunted down") [no native speaker would use the phrase "was hunt down", sorry, you lose]

3) the past tense (as in, <player> is already dead) of hunt is not hunt (and the subject of the original sentence is not the swarm, either - that's an object clause)

4) <subject> "was <verb>ed" preposition, object clause; where, due to tense, the entire verb is considered to be "was <blank>ed" (we don't really care about the swarm; the subject of the sentence, indeed the information being passed on, is that <player> was killed - killed by what is nothing but an interesting footnote)

5) plz do moar research in future if'n u wanna b teh resident grammah not-see, kthxbai

CreatureofHell · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2009, 08:34:03 pm »

Quote from: player1 on May 20, 2009, 08:24:10 pm

three things

1) ppl who want to be grammar nazis should learn to spell "grammar"

2) no, it does not, u r wrong, it's perfectly fine as it is ("was hunted down") [no native speaker would use the phrase "was hunt down", sorry, you lose]

3) the past tense (as in, <player> is already dead) of hunt is not hunt (and the subject of the original sentence is not the swarm, either - that's an object clause)

+1

your face · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2009, 08:46:01 pm »

p1 wins

KillerWhale · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2009, 12:54:41 am »

Quote from: player1 on May 20, 2009, 08:24:10 pm

-snip-

I think Player1 just owned someone in grammar structure without using a single proper sentence or full word.

Wow.

bacon665 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2009, 03:43:47 am »

"was" is past tense so after thing after it is sposed to be in infinitive form...... that includes hunt

And i agree hunted down sounds better until you add by the swarm to the end
even if you change "was" to "has been" it still specifies past tense so you would still use hunt

player1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2009, 04:30:39 am »

1) rules schmules, what would a native speaker say?

2) I believe u mean past participle, which in this case happens to be the same as the infinitive

3) replace the verb "hunt" with the verb "kill" and see how that works out for you (was kill?)

Undeference · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2009, 04:39:15 am »

"was" is the auxiliary verb lending passive voice to the past participle "hunted". "was hunted" is a finite verb (indicative mood) in present perfect tense.

For infinitive "hunting" to be used, the sentence would have to be restructured as "the swarm was hunting UnnamedPlayer", which changes the implied meaning.

But IANAEM (I am not an English major) so don't quote me on that.

bacon665 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:23:04 am »

Quote from: player1 on May 21, 2009, 04:30:39 am

1) rules schmules, what would a native speaker say?

2) I believe u mean past participle, which in this case happens to be the same as the infinitive

3) replace the verb "hunt" with the verb "kill" and see how that works out for you (was kill?)

"they went and hunt him down like a monkey"
"they went and kill him down like a monkey"

"they went and hunted him down like a monkey"
"they went and killed him down like a monkey"

erm.... not so sure kill is the best replacement to use as a proof.

I should have just made this a poll.
personally I could care less just figured id point it out in case you all wanted to change it.
I'm not the creator of the game so its contents have little relfection.
me shall spoke way i feel want when me does =P

Archangel · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:27:43 am »

shut up

player1 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:44:31 am »

@Undef: nice, thx

@OP: gl, cheers

@solar: lol

Bissig · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:55:38 pm »

Compromise:

"was hunten down" - like in "stricken down".

;-P

bacon665 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2009, 06:37:01 pm »

Why compromise the rest of the statements are simple like
was bitten by
was gunned down by
could be as simple as was attacked or whatever

either way im gonna go enjoy myself on X server

your face · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2009, 07:33:56 pm »

Quote from: Archangel on May 21, 2009, 05:27:43 am

shut up

frazzler · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2009, 05:38:11 am »

If you were to be right, we would then have to change '<player> was mass driven' to '<player> was mass drive by <player>' does this make sense?
or perhaps you would prefer '<player> was melt by an acid tube'. Yeah. then there is my favourite:
'<player> was shoot down by a turret' as opposed to '<player> was shot down by a turret'.

Clearly the devs of tremulous know how to spell.

Archangel · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2009, 07:04:28 am »

Quote from: bacon665 on May 21, 2009, 06:37:01 pm

either way im gonna go enjoy myself on X server

and this is why we ignore him

bacon665 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 24, 2009, 02:23:45 am »

Quote

and this is why we ignore him

and you having your posts edited like the "theres no such thing as i786" so that people dont see them is why people listen to you.

Archangel · « **Reply #19 on:** May 24, 2009, 06:37:18 am »

edited? that was my argument, i simply edited it to fix a few typos, add more information to make you look like the moron you are, but i can't remember what thread that's in, otherwise i'd quote it.

bacon665 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 24, 2009, 06:42:21 pm »

HA there was like 7 posts removed from that thread.

Paradox · « **Reply #21 on:** May 29, 2009, 02:41:54 am »

HA you’re a noob.

Helix. · « **Reply #22 on:** May 29, 2009, 05:37:02 am »

Wow at this kids fail. And, even if it was spelled wrong, do you have somewhat of a disease that you MUST fix everything?

Man of Tacos · « **Reply #23 on:** May 29, 2009, 06:55:19 am »

Well they're both correct. However your wording is good. <-Ha Ha get it grammar mistake ha... no.

CreatureofHell · « **Reply #24 on:** May 29, 2009, 04:00:03 pm »

Which both? Many people have said things :/

Jedarus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2009, 02:52:53 pm »

Quote from: CreatureofHell on May 29, 2009, 04:00:03 pm

Which both? Many people have said things :/

I tink he was referring to OP and player1.

But I still think bacon is ignorant of the english language, though his other posts seem to make perfect sense, albeit a few typos here and there.

CreatureofHell · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2009, 03:36:55 pm »

But the OP was wrong so it wouldn't make sense to say he is right.

Nux · « **Reply #27 on:** June 01, 2009, 10:50:37 pm »

I was expecting you to be talking about "<player> fell fowl to gravity".

Out of interest bacon665, did you learn English as a second language?

bacon665 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 02, 2009, 03:54:00 am »

uh... i wouldnt say second language.....

Nux · « **Reply #29 on:** June 02, 2009, 02:01:14 pm »

I'll take that as a yes. In that case please appreciate that we native speakers might be slightly more familiar with the use of the word 'hunt' then you.

That said, it isn't uncommon for non-native speakers to have a better grasp on the language, most likely because they aren't so prone to the ever corrupting slang.

Please Note: 'Second language' refers to any language learned after the first. That includes the ones you learned after the first fifteen language.

News:

Author Topic: Grammer issue with death (Read 47029 times)

Archangel

Archangel

Archangel

Archangel