First of all, don't worry about a late response--we understand time differences and being busy. Liebe is a little closer to your timezone in the United Arab Emirates. You do not come across as rude. To the contrary, you are polite and gracious with criticism.
Notoman) First, I gotta say you surprised me with such detail explanation.
Thanks. I really don't feel qualified, but I am trying. Instead of just changing things, I would like to let you know WHY I would make those changes (I do the same thing with native speakers). I don't always know why we do things the way we do though.
[urbanisation is proceeding so rapidly that it is generating largely unpredicted problems ]
my original sentence just finish like this, but my english teacher doesn't like this and said if I want to use this sentence, I have to insert 'one hundred years ago', so I just put that at last of the sentence;;
It makes a difference in English WHERE you put certain words. "Problems one hundred years ago" makes it sound like the problems were one hundred years ago and not now. What you are trying to say is that we have new problems. Your first sentence makes that point. I am not sure why your English teacher wanted you to add "one hundred years ago." If you want to keep that phrase, you need to rewrite the sentence so that it says that we have new problems that we did not have one hundred years ago.
-second paragraph of yours-
[I did want to point out that environment is almost always singular in English]
In this sentence, you put in 'did' even though there is an another verb. Is additional 'did' implies explanation why you mentioned the sentences which Liebe already mentioned? I learned it is only used as emphasis purposes.
The word
did was a quirk in my sentence. It is not needed. "Did" is considered a helping/auxiliary verb here and the sentence can be rewritten without it. I could have said, "I want to point out" or "Let me point out." I could have even started the sentence with the word
environment, but the first part of the sentence added a little bit of politeness.
I'm still not sure why I was wrong to use 'new area'in the second of HarryK box.
In urbanisation, government clears out nasty suburb, then there's big empty space as you referred, and I explained 'new area' with where the factories will built on?
Like you mentioned I'm having a problem with discerning nuances in vocab, and my concept of each vocab is very vague, so I was starting to see english-english dictionary,not korean-english dic, but thanks for the advice^^.
"New area" isn't necessarily wrong, but it is a little vague. It is like saying "the space," but not telling your reader what space you are talking about. Space and area are similar words in English. I didn't have a clear picture of what area you were talking about. I was thinking that urbanization would mean building factories and such on land that had been open or rural.
-seventh paragraph of yours- at the last sentence,, [increase the government's wealth through taxes collected] can you just shorten like this? I mean,,
I know the meaning is [increase the government's wealth through taxes which is collected by nation] , but I don't understand how it works, I mean,, is that enough? just past tense of verb you wanna explain? or collected is necessary in this sentence;can't be ommited? is this rule can be applied in every sentence?
Yes! This sentence can be shortened. I put the word
collected in there because the word
taxes is usually something people here think about paying out. It is not needed though. Can this rule be applied to every English sentence? No. No. No. The one thing in English that is always the same is that there will be exceptions.
I was pondering if the online is correct or just online is correct
In this sentence, you would just say
online. You are talking about online in a very general sense. You would need
the if you were talking about
the Internet in this sentence (because there is only one Internet). Not the easiest concept to use here though! I think I have I have an explanation on when to use articles. I wanted to make a flowchart in Photoshop, but then I realized I would not have a way of posting a picture here. It seems to me that articles are the area where most English learners make mistakes. If you were able to conquer the article, you would eliminate many mistakes.
Here are a couple of Internet sites that explain article use:
esl.about.com/library/beginner/blathe.htm
unenlightenedenglish.com/?p=330
The websites are a little complex, but the second one has a flowchart like I had in mind.
[The only thing I would do is omit~~ ]
[The only thing I'm doing is omit~~ ]
[The only thing I will do is omit~~ ]
I will try! I don't know if I can do this though. Sean! Simone! I am in over my head here!
The only thing I would do is omit . . . would (and could, should, might, may, will, must, can) is in a special class of verbs called "modal verbs." They can also be used as imperative verbs to command someone to do something (You must see that movie!). A modal verb is another helping verb. We sometimes use them to be polite . . . would you open the door for me? That sounds better in English than . . . Open the door for me! The tricky thing is that some of the modal verbs (could, should, would) have to have another verbs with it. Then there are other modal verbs (do or have, for example) that can work alone or with another verb. A similar sentence structure could be, "The only thing I would eat is my mom's apple pie." Here's a website that explains it better: learnenglish.de/grammar/verbmodal.htm
The only thing I'm doing is omitting . . . doing is the gerund form so it uses another gerund in this case. This is saying that you are doing something right now. Let me use another example. The only thing I am doing is eating.
The only thing I will do is omit . . . This is talking about something you will do in the future. You aren't doing it right now and you aren't being polite about it (but you aren't being rude either), you are simply stating what you plan to do. I will eat the sandwich.
Should it be it seems(not it seemed) in academic essay-not especially IELTS writing?
This was my sleep-deprived brain not writing very well!
Seems is present tense--we are currently destroying the environment.
Seemed is past tense. We might have destroyed the environment in the past, but we are behaving better now.
[We would also say to be critical of instead of to be critic on]
I really can't understand the structure as well as meaning.
There are several words in English that are closely related:
Critic . . . noun, a person who being critical
Critical . . . adjective, describes finding fault or judging
Critique . . . noun, the writing or evaluation. This would sometimes be in the form of an essay or newspaper article. Critique can also be used as a verb, but it is less common.
Criticism . . . another noun. Judgment, comment, evaluation.
Critically . . . adverb
Criticize . . .verb, the action
In your sentence you need to say more about who should be a critic or who should be critical:
a citizen needs to be a critic of their government's decisions
people need to be critical of their government's decisions
people should criticize their government's decisions.
I hope that I didn't confuse you more (or make you stay up way too late again).