1
   

Is sentence correct?

 
 
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 07:02 pm
Jason was not willing to tell lies.

Is the sentence correct? If so, how would it be changed to the negative?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 552 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 12:46 am
Re: Is sentence correct?
Yoong Liat wrote:
Is the sentence correct?


Yes.

Yoong Liat wrote:
If so, how would it be changed to the negative?


The sentence already is a negative, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you wanted to negate the negative, it would be "Jason was willing to tell lies." But perhaps you are asking about something else?
0 Replies
 
epenthesis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 01:44 am
Yoong Liat was willing ... when it came to homework.
0 Replies
 
Aa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 10:29 am
An alternative way of stating the sentence (which is already correct) is as follows:

"Jason was unwilling to tell lies."

As an alternative, one could focus on the positive, such as:

"Jason always told the truth."
"Jason insisted on telling the truth."
"Jason was determined to tell the truth."
0 Replies
 
Yoong Liat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:33 pm
Re: Is sentence correct?
Shapeless wrote:
Yoong Liat wrote:
Is the sentence correct?


Yes.

Yoong Liat wrote:
If so, how would it be changed to the negative?


The sentence already is a negative, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you wanted to negate the negative, it would be "Jason was willing to tell lies." But perhaps you are asking about something else?


My apologies. It should be as follows. Is it possible using the words given to complete sentence 2 so that it means the same as 1?

1. Jason was not willing to tell lies.
2. Jason was willing ______________________ .

Many thanks.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 02:45 am
Not really. You can apply the negative to to tell rather than willing, but the meaning of the sentence will change:


"Jason was willing to not tell lies" or "Jason was willing not to tell lies"


Your original sentence means that Jason will only tell the truth (because he is not willing to lie). These sentences, on the other hand, mean that Jason is merely considering telling the truth; these sentences still allow for the possibility that Jason will tell lies.
0 Replies
 
Yoong Liat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05:02 am
Shapeless wrote:
Not really. You can apply the negative to to tell rather than willing, but the meaning of the sentence will change:


"Jason was willing to not tell lies" or "Jason was willing not to tell lies"


Your original sentence means that Jason will only tell the truth (because he is not willing to lie). These sentences, on the other hand, mean that Jason is merely considering telling the truth; these sentences still allow for the possibility that Jason will tell lies.


1. Jason was not willing to tell lies.
2. Jason was willing to tell the truth.

Will #2 have the same meaning as #1?

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 09:37 am
Not quite. (1) means that Jason will only tell the truth. (2) means that Jason will consider telling the truth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is sentence correct?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 01:16:08