又是英文文法問題時間

1. I'm sure you could have written it a lot neater.

This sentence should be rewritten as:
I'm sure you could have written it a lot more neatly.
The reason: you have to use adverb instead of adjective to modify the verb.

"a lot" functions as an adverb (of degree), intensifying another adverb "more".

No, according to the meaning of the sentence, you should use the comparative form of the adverb, i.e. "more neatly". Besides, you would normally say something like "very neatly" but not "a lot neatly".
e.g. I'm sure you will write it very neatly.

You should study harder. (correct) "harder" is an adverb
You should study more hard. (incorrect)

Please note that the comparative form of "hard" (adjective and adverb) is always "harder".

2. Tom would not say who he thought should succeed.
It is correct to use "who" instead of "whom" because "who" is the subject of the dependent clause (interrogative content clause).
The question: Who he thought (that) should succeed ?
The answer: He thought (that) Perter [answer of who] should succeed.

3. 可以省略"should"的生字

It is much more common in American English to use a special verb form called the subjunctive when talking about events that are uncertain. However, British English speakers would probably convey the same idea using "should" (modal auxiliary verb).
The subjunctive is typically used after two structures:the verbs: ask, command, demand, insist, propose, recommend, request, advise, suggest + thatthe expressions: it is desirable, essential, important, imperative, necessary, vital + thatExamples:
The president insists that pollution (should) be reduced.
It is essential that we (should) decide today.

4. 點解係by police而唔係by the police?
The word "police" in the sentence actually refers to "a police officer" or "some police officers" (警察) but not "police force" (警方).



2012-07-22 12:30:28 補充：
"123 (people)" is the subject of the relative clause, so it must be placed after the relative pronoun, as required by the grammar rules.

2012-07-22 12:30:39 補充：
6. This sentence has no problem, grammatically and semantically.

2012-07-22 16:37:33 補充：
哎! 不知道為什麼我被Yahoo扣除100分? 說：意見內容違規

2012-07-25 15:59:52 補充：
(5) determiners like many, some, all, none, ...etc. and numbers, which are the subject of the relative clause, can be placed in front of the "of which" and "of whom". You may use "whose" for other possessive forms.

Therefore, "123 of whom ... " is correct.

我最近都試過
違規原因： 其他
點數：-50
違規資料：

2012-07-23 00:58:19 補充：
AhShing is correct about number 2.

依小弟之愚見，第6句是否應該加一個"the"呢（如下）？
One of ”the” activists said ...

1. 問題一：你兩句好似係一模一樣喎！邊有轉到啫？！

問題二：有人認為係noun，有人認為係adverb。而我認為呢度好明顯係adverbial 嘅作用，所以應該係comparative adverb.

問題三：唔得，因為a lot喺呢度係表示「much」嘅意思，所以應該跟一個比較級形容詞，例如：much better，我哋唔會話much well。

問題四：1. 冇問題。2. 唔啱！你呢句句子本身個意思係「你要更加努力學習」吖嘛，要表示「更努力」一係就「harder」，一係就改用間述「pay more effort to」。「more hard」本身文法有問題，咁嘅表達係錯誤嘅比較級寫法。如果一定想用類似結構，可改為「you should study much harder.」

2. 「whom」係替代who為受詞嘅 formal form，例句中改用whom亦可以，不過一般對話或者simple english我哋都唔會咁講，今時今日formal form通常只會用喺公文上。而重要嘅係「whom」雖係「who」嘅受詞代理，但唔係話「who」就必定係主詞or唔可以係受詞，「who」本身係主受同形嘅，即係可以係受詞，所以為咗簡便起見，唔理係主詞定受詞，多數人都會一律用「who」，而慳返唔使佢係主詞定受詞。

3. 喺句中，imperative嘅意思係「好重要嘅」、「必須嘅」，個字詞本身已經帶有「should」嘅意思，咁當然唔需要再喺後面加個「should」字啦。至於幾時可以省略邊啲字，係要視乎句形結構，字義語法而定，唔能夠一概而論。（所以字典裡面唔會有表列囉！）

4. 你啱，比較常用同通順應該係「the police」，不過佢唔加determiner都唔可以話佢錯嘅。

5. 例句中，「whom」係pronoun，指代嗰231個受訪者嘅整體，「of whom」嘅結構就係好簡單嘅prepositional ph. 囉，意思係呢班人當中，「126」係quantifier。其實你唔應該問「of whom126」嘅結構，而係應該問「of whom 126 said」嘅結構先啱。

6. 文法冇錯囉。

2012-07-24 01:41:32 補充：
我支持另外那位網友的對問題 2. 的答案，他是對的。

She likes reading newspaper, the international news part of which atracts her most.
可以轉成
She likes reading newspaper, of which the international news part atracts her most.
冇問題喎。