C1 grammar review: граматика в email
Інтеграція модальності, elipsis, cleft і fronting у тексті C1. Англійська з перекладом.
Email Thread: What We Need Before Tuesday Is Confirmation
Читання для практики
Читайте безкоштовно. Створіть акаунт, щоб перекладати слова, зберігати прогрес і тренуватися.
Практикує integrated patterns in professional email у контексті C1 review вузла c1-nuanced-grammar.
Рівень: C1Тема: C1 review: граматика в email; modality, ellipsis, cleft, fronting
From: Jonas. To: Studio. Subject: Facade review before client walkthrough.
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that revised glass weight stays within the cantilever tolerance. Need it we do because the supplier substituted 'approximate load' for a figure counsel rejected last month.
It was Elena who flagged drift in the structural model during Friday's call. Flag it she did before anyone opened the rendering package.
You needn't have moved the client slot, yet move it you did, and scarcely had I landed when questions about emphasis in the executive summary began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph? I believe we ought, and believe it the partner does too after the council's letter.
Not until appendix C did I see ellipsis that left 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the acoustic consultant agree to revised specs, and the lighting team did as well.
Dare we omit the heritage footnote? I dare not recommend omission without legal sign-off.
From: Jonas. To: Studio collective. Subject: Facade revision.
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that the cantilever calculations support the revised glass weight.
It was the structural engineer who flagged drift in the model, and flag it she did in paragraph three of her memo.
You needn't have rescheduled the client walkthrough, yet reschedule it you did and scarcely had I arrived when questions began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph in the executive summary? I think we ought, and so thinks Elena.
Not until the appendix did I notice you'd substituted 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the lighting consultant agree to dimmer specs, and the acoustic team did as well after yesterday's call.
What I would have done is cleft the safety certification sentence; what I did instead was bury it on page nine.
Little did the client expect inversion in our formal letter, yet formal it remained while emphasis sharpened.
Dare we omit the heritage clause? I dare not recommend omission, nor should anyone without legal review.
From: Jonas. To: Studio collective. Subject: Facade revision.
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that the cantilever calculations support the revised glass weight.
It was the structural engineer who flagged drift in the model, and flag it she did in paragraph three of her memo.
You needn't have rescheduled the client walkthrough, yet reschedule it you did and scarcely had I arrived when questions began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph in the executive summary? I think we ought, and so thinks Elena.
Not until the appendix did I notice you'd substituted 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the lighting consultant agree to dimmer specs, and the acoustic team did as well after yesterday's call.
What I would have done is cleft the safety certification sentence; what I did instead was bury it on page nine.
Little did the client expect inversion in our formal letter, yet formal it remained while emphasis sharpened.
Dare we omit the heritage clause?
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that revised glass weight stays within the cantilever tolerance. Need it we do because the supplier substituted 'approximate load' for a figure counsel rejected last month.
It was Elena who flagged drift in the structural model during Friday's call. Flag it she did before anyone opened the rendering package.
You needn't have moved the client slot, yet move it you did, and scarcely had I landed when questions about emphasis in the executive summary began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph? I believe we ought, and believe it the partner does too after the council's letter.
Not until appendix C did I see ellipsis that left 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the acoustic consultant agree to revised specs, and the lighting team did as well.
Dare we omit the heritage footnote? I dare not recommend omission without legal sign-off.
From: Jonas. To: Studio collective. Subject: Facade revision.
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that the cantilever calculations support the revised glass weight.
It was the structural engineer who flagged drift in the model, and flag it she did in paragraph three of her memo.
You needn't have rescheduled the client walkthrough, yet reschedule it you did and scarcely had I arrived when questions began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph in the executive summary? I think we ought, and so thinks Elena.
Not until the appendix did I notice you'd substituted 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the lighting consultant agree to dimmer specs, and the acoustic team did as well after yesterday's call.
What I would have done is cleft the safety certification sentence; what I did instead was bury it on page nine.
Little did the client expect inversion in our formal letter, yet formal it remained while emphasis sharpened.
Dare we omit the heritage clause? I dare not recommend omission, nor should anyone without legal review.
From: Jonas. To: Studio collective. Subject: Facade revision.
What we need before Tuesday is confirmation that the cantilever calculations support the revised glass weight.
It was the structural engineer who flagged drift in the model, and flag it she did in paragraph three of her memo.
You needn't have rescheduled the client walkthrough, yet reschedule it you did and scarcely had I arrived when questions began.
Ought we to front the sustainability paragraph in the executive summary? I think we ought, and so thinks Elena.
Not until the appendix did I notice you'd substituted 'the prior scheme' without a clear antecedent.
So did the lighting consultant agree to dimmer specs, and the acoustic team did as well after yesterday's call.
What I would have done is cleft the safety certification sentence; what I did instead was bury it on page nine.
Little did the client expect inversion in our formal letter, yet formal it remained while emphasis sharpened.
Dare we omit the heritage clause?
Про статтю
Рівень C1Фокус читання
Що вивчите
C1 review: граматика в email; modality, ellipsis, cleft, fronting
Практикує integrated patterns in professional email у контексті C1 review вузла c1-nuanced-grammar.
Коментарі
Увійдіть, щоб залишити коментар
УвійтиПоки що немає коментарів. Будьте першим!
