Is this sentence grammatically correct?
The toddler destroyed his baby walker by letting it fall down the stairs.
- Anonymous2 months agoFavourite answer
"Destroyed" implies deliberate action, so I think it would be "The toddler destroyed his baby walker by throwing it downstairs."
If not deliberate then possibly: "The toddler badly damaged his baby walker by allowing it to fall downstairs." 'Allowing it to fall downstairs' would probably not result in total destruction.
And in fact no parent would allow a toddler to 'play with' something with wheels close to the top of the stairs - it might result in the toddler falling downstairs and sustaining bad injuries.
Bad mark to your teacher for using that idea! Probably your teacher has never been a parent.
- WillieLv 71 month ago
By pushing it down the stairs.
- 1 month ago
As others have said the sentence is gramatically correct but the way the sentence is structured implies that the toddler was negligent in ALLOWING the walker to fall down the stairs. It implies that a very young child has the experience, the instinct and the physical ability to stop this incident which obviously he doesn't. Maybe the intended thought was:
The toddler unintentionally pushed the walker down the stairs and it was destroyed.
- 1 month ago
There are a couple problems with it. "destroy" implies that it was intentional, or a catastrophic accident. And a child learning to walk doesn't have the cognitive ability, or the reflexes, to decide to grab the walker, and then grab it, to prevent it from falling.
It sounds like you're blaming the child. If anyone is to blame, it would be the parent(s) for allowing a child with a walker to be so close to stairs (and they should be more concerned with the welfare of the child versus the walker).
So the premise of the statement is wrong. You (or whoever wrote it) have chosen the wrong subject & the wrong verb. We would say something like this: "The walker was (badly) damaged/broken when it fell down the stairs (as the child was playing with it)".
I disagree with those on here who have said yours is "grammatically correct". A native speaker would never say what you have written.Source(s): native English speaker
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 1 month ago
Yes. Grammatically, it is correct without a doubt.
However, the vocabulary is a little questionable. You used "destroyed" which is a strong word for a baby. If it is for comedy or impact, then it is okay. If not, you can use "broke" instead in your sentence.
- bluebellbkkLv 71 month ago
There are dozens of different ways of expressing this episode, some better, some worse, but as it stands, your own version is grammatically correct.
Your choice of words is not a grammar issue.
EDIT TO ADD: The answerer named "E' claims this cannot be grammatically correct because a native speaker would never say it. I'm afraid that E has totally misunderstood the notion of grammatical correctness. It has NO connection with the truth or desirability of the sentence in question, or with whether a native speaker would or wouldn't say it. As long as the rules of English grammar and syntax have been followed - and in your sentence they have - it is "grammatically correct".
It may be demonstrably untrue, it may indeed be so awkwardly written that a native speaker could never have written it, but it may STILL be grammatically correct.
- JohnLv 72 months ago
Yes, I was about to write it. You want to blame a baby. The walker fell down the stairs and was broken beyond repair.