Post-reading

[CoolName]

I''ve read an article about the glacier blood today. It was interesting which also gave me a lot of new knowledge. The author indicated that the trigger of the glacier blood was that the multiplied production of the algae.

 

[probus]

I''ve read an article about (no article needed here) glacier blood today. It was interesting and gave me a lot of new knowledge. The author indicated that the trigger of glacier blood was the increased production of algae.

Hello CoolName and welcome to the forum. Please note the several changes I've made to your post.

 

[CoolName]

Hello CoolName and welcome to the forum. Please note the several changes I've made to your post.

Thank you @probus
I have revised my sentence with your feedback shown as below.
I have read about the glacier blood today. It was interesting and gave me a lot of new knowledge. The author indicated that the trigger of the glacier blood was the increase production of the algae.

 

[probus]

Get rid of the first and the last "the" and change increase to increased. Then it will be correct and natural.

 

[CoolName]

Thank you @probus
I have revised it again as below.
I have read about glacier blood today. It was interesting and gave me a lot of new knowledge. The author indicated that the trigger of glacier blood was the increased production of algae.

 

[tedmc]

Thank you @probus
I have revised it again as below.
I have read (1) about glacier blood today. It (2) gave me a lot of new knowledge. The author indicated that the trigger of glacier blood was the increased production of algae.

(1) Where did you read about glacier blood?
(2) What is "it" in the second sentence?

I prefer not to use "trigger", which is associated with a gun.
the trigger of Glacier blood was caused by the increased production of algae.

 

[CoolName]

(1) Where did you read about glacier blood?
(2) What is "it" in the second sentence?

I prefer not to use "trigger", which is associated with a gun.
the trigger of Glacier blood was caused by the increased production of algae.

Thank you @tedmc
I read it in the Newyork Time magazine. "It" means reading about glacier blood.

 

[Tarheel]

@CoolName I have noticed over the years that ESL learners typically use perfect tenses where I would not. I am not sure why that is. For example, I would say: "I read about glacier blood today."

 

[CoolName]

@CoolName I have noticed over the years that ESL learners typically use perfect tenses where I would not. I am not sure why that is. For example, I would say: "I read about glacier blood today."

Thanks @Tarheel
Right. I think it is because learners would like to practice their usage of perfect tense (e.g. not forgetting to use it). For example, actually I like using past tense very much, no matter if the current event has impact on the future event. I think the usage of past tense can also represent the usage of perfect tense, as the scope of usage of past tense is larger than the scope of usage of perfect tense. In other word, the scope of usage of past tense includes the scope of usage of perfect tense. Please feel free to correct my grammar mistakes. Welcome any other opinions!

 

[emsr2d2]

I''ve I read an article about the glacier blood today. It was interesting which also gave me a lot of new knowledge and taught me a lot. The author indicated suggested that the trigger of the glacier blood was is caused by that the multiplied increased production of the algae.

 

[CoolName]

Thanks @emsr2d2
I think I cannot put the in front of the first glacier blood is because it isn't refer to a particular glacier blood. Why can't I put "the" in front of the second glacier blood? The second glacier blood is refer to the glacier blood I mentioned in the first sentence.

 

[probus]

It's the definite article before algae that is still a problem. You need to eliminate it.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks @emsr2d2
I think that the reason I cannot put "the" in front of the first "glacier blood" is because it isn't doesn't refer to a particular glacier blood. Why can't I put "the" in front of the second "glacier blood"? The second "glacier blood" is refer refers to the glacier blood I mentioned in the first sentence.

You're not referring to a specific instance of "glacier blood" in either case. You're referring to all "glacier blood". The writer seems to be describing a habitual action or fact. It's the same as "Water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade". We don't say "The water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade", even if we've mentioned it once before in a piece of writing.

 

[CoolName]

Got it @emsr2d2
If I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine, can I add "the" in front of "glacier blood"?

 

[tedmc]

Got it @emsr2d2
If I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine, can I add "the" in front of "glacier blood"?

Say: The glacier blood in Alpine.

 

[5jj]

If I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine,

What is that?

 

[CoolName]

What is that?

"If I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine," means that I am referring the glacier blood in Alpine mountain specially, not all glacier blood in the world.

 

[5jj]

You cannot say 'in Alpine'. Say 'in the Alps'.

 

[emsr2d2]

By "If I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine," means I mean that I am referring to the glacier blood in Alpine mountain the Alps especially, not all glacier blood in the world.

 

[CoolName]

You cannot say 'in Alpine'. Say 'in the Alps'.

Thanks!
I can really tell the difference of meaning between putting "the" and not putting "the" in front of "Alps" through your confusion of understanding my sentence.