[Grammar] Accupass is ticketing platform.

[kadioguy]

Term of Use：

1. Please use QR-Code for event check-in. You can use mobile phone/tablet to display it or print it out.(each QR-Code is only for single entrance)

2. The validation of ticket(s) will be verified by event organizer ,and they have the final explanation.

3. Accupass is ticketing platform. This means that organizers handle all aspects of their events. If you have event-specific questions, please contact event organizer.

4.Questions to ticket-buying and platform operation, please contact Accupass Customer Center.
-----

"Platform" is countable. Why is the determiner before the blue text omitted?

-----
[Source]

 

[5jj]

Because the translator made a mistake.

 

[emsr2d2]

Terms of Use：

1. Please use a/the/your QR-Code for the event check-in. You can use a/your mobile phone/tablet to display it or print it out. space here (Each QR-Code is only for a/one single [STRIKE]entrance[/STRIKE] entry.)

2. The validation of ticket(s) will be verified by the event organizer, and they have the final [STRIKE]explanation[/STRIKE] decision.

3. Accupass is a ticketing platform. This means that the organizers handle all aspects of their events. If you have event-specific questions, please contact the event organizer.

4. For questions [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] about ticket-buying and platform operation, please contact the Accupass Customer Center.
-----

"Platform" is countable. Why is the determiner before the blue text omitted?

-----
[Source]

I don't know why you just picked on that one missing article. I have added all the missing articles above in red so you can see how it would look if they were all fully grammatical sentences. Bear in mind that it's been written like a set of instructions and it's perfectly possible/acceptable to leave out certain words in those.

 

[kadioguy]

I don't know why you just picked on that one missing article. I have added all the missing articles above in red so you can see how it would look if they were all fully grammatical sentences. Bear in mind that it's been written like a set of instructions and it's perfectly possible/acceptable to leave out certain words in those.

To me, there are two possible tenses for the blue text: the past simple and the present perfect. (And maybe the present simple?)

If you don't mind, could you please tell me why you chose the present perfect?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

To me, there are two possible tenses for the blue text: the past simple and the present perfect. (And maybe the present simple?)

If you don't mind, could you please tell me why you chose the present perfect?

Using a would make more sense. You're right, there should be an article there.

 

[kadioguy]

Using a would make more sense. You're right, there should be an article there.

Hi, Charlie. What do you think about my post #4?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Hi, Charlie. What do you think about my post #4?

You're right, either tense would work. I don't know why Ems chose present perfect. It's probably just the way Ems thinks.

 

[tedmc]

To me, there are two possible tenses for the blue text: the past simple and the present perfect. (And maybe the present simple?)

If you don't mind, could you please tell me why you chose the present perfect?

It is only logical to use the present perfect tense to refer to something that has been done and you are discussing it. I think the simple present (for a repetitive action) is acceptable too but not the simple past.

 

[kadioguy]

It is only logical to use the present perfect tense to refer to something that has been done and you are discussing it. [...]

I think you mean this:

[From PEU 3rd ed.]

We use the present perfect especially to say that a finished action or event is connected with the present in some way. [The blue text below]

As for the green text, maybe it was intended to be in agreement with the the first blue one. [Just a guess]

I don't know why you just picked on that one missing article. I have added all the missing articles above in red so you can see how it would look if they were all fully grammatical sentences. Bear in mind that it's been written like a set of instructions and it's perfectly possible/acceptable to leave out certain words in those.

 

[5jj]

I think the simple present (for a repetitive action) is acceptable too but not the simple past.

I see no repetitive action in Bear in mind that it's been written like a set of instructions and it's perfectly possible/acceptable to leave out certain words in those, though I think the simple present/unmarked tense is possible. I also think the simple past would be fine

 

[tedmc]

I see no repetitive action in Bear in mind that it's been written like a set of instructions and it's perfectly possible/acceptable to leave out certain words in those, though I think the simple present/unmarked tense is possible. I also think the simple past would be fine

What I meant was that the simple present tense would make it a general statement which could apply to other instances of instruction writing.
Don't you agree that the present perfect tense is preferred to the simple past?

 

[kadioguy]

What I meant was that the simple present tense would make it a general statement which could apply to other instances of instruction writing. [...]

a. It (this kind of stuff) is written like a set of instructions.

b. Harry Potter is written by J. K. Rowling.
---
Sentence (a) is possible because it is a general statement which can apply to other instances of this kind, while sentence (b) is incorrect because Harry Potter is specific novels - we should say "Harry Potter was written by J. K. Rowling".

Is that right?

 

[5jj]

What I meant was that the simple present tense would make it a general statement which could apply to other instances of instruction writing.

In the example of Bear in mind that it's written like a set of instructions, we are talking only about the piece of writing we are looking at.

Don't you agree that the present perfect tense is preferred to the simple past?

No.

 

[kadioguy]

In the example of Bear in mind that it's written like a set of instructions, we are talking only about the piece of writing we are looking at.

Then why is it possible, while sentence (b) in post #12 is incorrect? Because of the difference between is written like and is written by?

 

[5jj]

b. Harry Potter is written by J. K. Rowling.

[...] sentence (b) is incorrect because Harry Potter is specific novels - we should say "Harry Potter was written by J. K. Rowling".

Is that right?

No. It is incorrect because J K Rowling wrote the Harry Potter stories, not Harry Potter.

If you wish to use a passive construction, then you can say Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was written by J K Rowing. In some situations, the present simple/unmarked tense would not be incorrect.

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------

It is only logical to use the present perfect tense to refer to something that has been done and you are discussing it.

Be careful. You're trying to define a grammatical structure by using the grammatical structure you're defining. :lol:

 

[kadioguy]

... it's written like a set of instructions.

Could you please tell me why the present simple here is correct? Isn't the act (write) in the past?

 

[5jj]

I said "In some situations, the present simple/unmarked tense would not be incorrect". I suggest you don't worry about this.