<p>Awwwww…so I got that wrong?</p>
<p>it was like “The cats TAILS had KINKS” with “s” coz there were many cats so there were many tails and so there were many kinks…get it?</p>
<p>“to write” is not a direct object; it’s an infinitive complement. Unfortunately, fresh101, the semantic intention aligns with my first description in post #349, so freely is wrong.</p>
<p>The sentence should be:</p>
<p>Romantic writers felt more free to write about their emotions than did Victorian writers.</p>
<p>Woot, thanks silverturtle!
you’re my new favorite turtle</p>
<p>^so NE for that one?? NOO, please say there’s an error</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If freely was in the original sentence, then that’s the error. If not, it’s no error (or something else you guys didn’t mention).</p>
<p>sorry, forget my last post…so THERE IS an ERROR? Sorry, im on crack and confused</p>
<p>that error is too captious.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think it the error was “have” because it said french mountain honey which is singular.</p>
<p>what was the one where the kid was skiing with his aunt?</p>
<p>The error is “more freely”, as silverturtle explained.
In the original sentence, it said “more freely”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>freely should be free.</p>
<p>ok…freely was in the sentece…and thats wat i marked as the error</p>
<p>I was refering to #28</p>
<p>what was the answer to the question that had “would have took…etc. etc.:”</p>
<p>was it supposed to say “would have taken”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know the question, but “would have taken” is correct and “would have took” is wrong; the past participle of to take is taken.</p>
<p>^ I put NE for that Viggy. It made sense.</p>
<p>i put error at ‘would have took’</p>
<p>was this an experimental q. though> i dont remember</p>
<p>^error was “would have took”
and it wasn’t experimental.</p>
<p>@Viggy, it wasn’t experimental. So far -1 on writing if the citrus question is “have” and not "distinctively. Kinda psyched.</p>