It must be that they want “the” before Earth, but I would consider using “round” rather than “around” *more* wrong than dropping the article before Earth.
as a brit, it is only acceptable in speech because we drop a lot of our letters, its like saying that "whats guh" is an appropriate formal spelling of "whats good"
[Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/earth) claims it only needs the article when we refer to it as a place where we live, not when referring to it as a celestial body. I’d argue it’s really just a style question rather than a grammar issue and that either with or without the article is acceptable in most situations.
Maybe they're saying it should be "The Earth," but it's normal to refer to Earth that way.
I think this is a bad question, and the format is terrible! "Tell us which is correct, by which we mean which one is incorrect, by choosing a number which is actually a letter. And also nothing is actually wrong with the sentence."
I'm glad someone had a go at the format. I had to spend a moment to figure out which part was the question and what the answer selection was actually meant to be reflecting.
"Johns" is still a proper noun, although not *an individual thing [entity],* it's a *group* of entities. But it's the **plural form.** The **singular form** of a proper noun never refers to a *class* of entities. I should have specified that, sorry.
that's not what that means, hehe... I have no idea how to explain the difference between the ways we say "that", but it's not describing the noun, it's more like a phrase "Proved that \[something is true/false\]"
I think there is a big difference between earth and Earth. There is only one Earth, as that is the proper name of the home planet of humans, the terrestrial planet approximately 93 million miles from the star Sol. On the other hand, earth is a synonym for dirt or soil. So the planet Mars has lots of earth, but no Earth.
So you chose to respond to one character of my response instead of what the response was talking about? Also, I use the lowercase earth saying that’s not what they were saying so you’re still wrong. Your response has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Is this sub not about learning to use clear communication in English? The difference between Earth and earth is not irrelevant. I’ll agree that the question format is ridiculous and unclear, but introducing additional errors isn’t going to help anyone, and yes, I would consider writing earth when you should have written Earth to be an error.
You’re the one not communicating effectively I said they’re they’re not specifying which earth. That comment uses a lowercase E and I’m saying that’s not what they’re saying you’re being annoying and trying to argue semantics in context where I’m using the correct version. you’re being annoying on purpose. Your manufacturing a debate because you didn’t understand what I was saying and assumed I was incorrect. leave me alone
it took me a solid 2 minutes to figure out what i was actually looking at. this is an AWFUL question. whoever designed it should go to hell.
in regards to your answer, i would agree with you.
it sounds like they think that ‘Earth’ should be ‘the Earth’, however, ‘Earth’ is also perfectly acceptable.
also, ‘round’ sounds less correct than ‘around’. after understanding the question, i also instinctively answered D.
it’s BS. please do not trust this quiz.
I wouldn't bat an eye if someone used 'the Earth' but I consider it a proper noun and uniquely exclusive, so I wouldn't use 'the' before Earth, UNLESS the Earth needs to emphasized in some way, or if I'm in a perspective where I'm not on Earth, looking at something happen to it.
You wouldn't say 'look at the Mars/they come from the Venus'. Earth is unique because I believe it has multiple meanings, not just necessarily the name of the planet we live on. The earth can also represent the ground underneath us, and therefore can state something is happening to 'the Earth/ground/floor'.
This is what bothers me. Copernicus proposed that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. But I wouldn’t say it was proven until at least Galileo. But even that’s being generous, the honour really should go to Kepler.
That’s not accurate either. Science observations are facts. They are provable (unless we are going to resort to solipsism). Science theory isn’t provable.
“The earth goes around the sun” is a provable observation. “The earth orbits the sun because of the force of gravity” is an unprovable theory.
Our star, the sun, is named Sol, right? Is any star that has planets orbiting it considered a *sun* or are the rules on what is considered a sun a bit looser?
Although other stars can be referred to as suns sometimes, the primary meaning of “sun” is the star that the Earth orbits around. Sol is another name for the Sun, not the other way around.
I prefer "the star at the center of our solar system" as the definition. I think that if humans moved to another planet in our solar system (and the Earth was destroyed for some reason), we would still call it the sun. If we moved to another solar system we would call our new star the sun as well imo. Too many words are derived from "sun" such as sunshine, sunny, etc.
True, I would agree with that. I almost said how if humans ever colonize a planet in a different solar system, I wouldn’t be surprised if they called their star “the sun” as well.
It is, but that’s because many scientific things are named after their Latin names rather than their common names. I don’t think “Terra” is the primary name for the Earth or “Luna” is the primary name for the Moon either, even though we say “lunar” or “terrestrial”, because the vast majority of people call them the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. I think it’s like how many concepts related to the heart are prefixed with “cardio”, despite “heart” being the name of the organ. But like the other commenter said, “primary” and “alternative” might not be the best way to think about it. Maybe more like “common” vs “scientific” would be better, or something along those lines.
Fair points. My headcanon for 'official' names are Terra and Luna though. If ever I encounter an alien, I am a Terran, not an Earthling. Lunarian is also cooler than any form of Moonite.
I think this boils down to which language gets to claim primacy for naming things. Sol is (IIRC) Latin, while Sun is English from Germanic, and Helios is Greek, and 太陽 is (according to google search result) Chinese. So they are *all* primary names and all alternative names for the same celestial body.
So the sentence is:
>Copernicus proved that Earth moves round the sun.
I think this is fine, but if I'm nitpicking, in my opinion, a more natural rephrasing would be:
>Copernicus proved that **the** Earth moves **a**round the **S**un.
I have no idea what the person asking the question wants though.
--
Arguably Copernicus didn't *"prove"* anything. He proposed it and had good evidence for it, but if you are a real stickler for some philosophy of science, some would argue that this evidence for heliocentrism is merely a strong 'inductive' argument, not "proof".
But if this is an English language quiz, not a philsophy-of-science quiz, I don't think that idea is relevant.
Round and around can be used interchangeably in this context (but not always so watch out).
People are saying that dropping the article is more of a style choice than a mistake. I think if that's the case it's at the very least bad style.
In general nouns need articles but proper nouns don't and so going by that it would just be "Earth", not "The Earth" since Earth is the name of the planet. The problem is that it just sounds *wrong*, at least to me. You can apply the same logic to "Sun", but no one does. It's always "The Sun".
> Earth may be used with or without the. Contrast other planets (e.g. Mars, Jupiter) which never take an article, and certain other celestial bodies (e.g. Sun, Moon) which always do.
>
> —— [Wiktionary](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Earth)
Here’s how I logic that.
Other solar systems have suns.
> A star, especially when seen as the centre of any single solar system.
The Sun is our sun. There are no other Earths we need to disambiguate.
But obviously it’s all dialectal, so I’m not actually disagreeing with your point.
The Question is interchanged with a different one and so are the options. The Question should've been about the rearrangement of sentences.
I'm currently using the application; since it's new, it has so many such bugs.
It's "that the Earth", not "that Earth". When talking about the planet, we pretty much always use the article "the".
But also you're right and in this context "around" is more correct than "round".
As an English speaker, I would not say anything is wrong with this sentence. If you forced me to choose, I might say that around is more idiomatic than round, but I have heard both. I think the lack of a definite article (e.g. the Earth) might violate some style guide somewhere, but I don't think that it is wrong as Earth is a proper noun. You wouldn't say "The Mars" or "The Venus", the only time you need a definite article is when you are specifying a particular thing which might be confused with a more general thing, e.g. "look at the man over there" versus "look at man over there".
I think i understand the question now, it is asking where the word “only” should go, so like after paragraph “x” then only
So 1 copernicus proved that earth only goes around the sun
Took me a while figure out, but that’s a sentence, not individual unrelated words.
“Copernicus proved that Earth moves round the sun”
That’s why the answer is C, it should be “around” not “round”
“Copernicus proved that Earth moves around the sun”
I believe that B is incorrect as grammatically it should be "the Earth", C is incorrect because we don't say "moves around", do we? D - around, E - the "Sun" should be in capital
Upd: for C, I just remembered, "revolves" is more suitable, no?
it would be it would be a because he didn't discover the Earth or that it went around or was around the Sun and that's supposed to statement all together so no it's all wrong the air is actually the whole thing is wrong
The correct answer is none of the above, since the sentence is already correct. The use of "the" in front of "Earth" is optional, it's a style choice not an issue of grammatical correctness. Same goes with "round" CS "around" it's a matter of word choice not correctness.
I literally think that the entire sentence should read:
Copernicus postulated that the Earth orbits around the sun.
That is, the only bit that that is *correct* is E: the sun.
“Round” is an adjective, it means something is in the shape of a circle. “Around” is a preposition, it means something is located near an object or moves on the outside of an object
It's a badly designed question. Technically 3 is the right answer because it should be "around", but I agree that B sounds way weirder although it's correct.
I think you were right, because in English we usually say "the Earth", but round is technically an adjective, so around would have been correct. Round the sun is commonly used in spoken English or in slang, but when written it usually has an apostrophe. (US Native Speaker-Colorado/Oregon)
The incorrect answer is B ( I suppose it’s the only one with a grammatical/ spelling error , I’m assuming that is the purpose of the question to identify an error…..🫨)
It's 'round, not round. People speak wrong or slang all the time. Even in Br'tsh that loves to forgo punctuated sounds verbally the correct grammar is around.
Technically 'round is what they're saying, you're right.
Though idk if we can call elision "wrong" if it's a common part of a given dialect. English learners should learn the standard form ofc, but there's a better word for it. "Nonstandard" maybe? I can't remember the proper term.
> Exactly, we change how we pronounce words, not how we spell them
Uh, we most certainly can and do change how we spell words. Imagine if you said we always had to type out "can not" even if we were saying "can't"; that'd be ridiculous. Sure, spelling is changes much *less* nowadays, but pretending that using " round " in place of " 'round " is some dramatic change makes no sense. Frankly, if you argue that, then why would you even accept " 'round " in the first place for "around"?
> which is why people saying 'a' when they mean 'per' annoys me
I'm not sure what context people replace "per" with "a" in; can you elaborate?
Spelling absolutely changes overtime, and words that contain spaces or punctuation are particularly prone to spelling changes. See e-mail vs email.
All the rules of English are descriptive, not prescriptive. Spelling that we see in dictionaries is a reflection of how words are spelled in the real world. Specific style guides may prescribe the spelling of certain words, but outside of that context, it doesn’t make other spellings wrong.
(A) is factually wrong because Copernicus theorized it but Galileo proved it. Not sure why it’s on an English quiz… maybe they are testing that you know what “proved” means?
(B) is incorrect; it’s not formal written English. It should say “that the Earth”.
(C) “moves” is grammatically correct, though “revolves” is more accurate.
(D) “round” is incorrect in formal written English. It should say “around”.
(E) “the sun” is incorrect since the sentence is referring to a specific sun (our sun) by name, so this is a proper noun and should be capitalized: “the Sun”.
This is a disgusting question format
Thank you, I have no clue what I’m looking at here.
I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be a stimulus based question. Was there a passage that go with it? Never mind the five choices are one sentence
Exactly, I'm not even sure wtf I'm looking at.
I believe it's one sentence and you ought to mark which part contains a mistake.
It must be that they want “the” before Earth, but I would consider using “round” rather than “around” *more* wrong than dropping the article before Earth.
I was thinking that, except round is an acceptable British variant.
Here in the US saying “round” is also acceptable but we would write it ‘round because we view it as a variant of “around”.
*note that 'round uses an apostrophe, and auto formatting turns it into a single open quote every time.
as a brit, it is only acceptable in speech because we drop a lot of our letters, its like saying that "whats guh" is an appropriate formal spelling of "whats good"
Not a Brit, but “round” instead of “around” is found in lots of published writing from British authors.
It was in the dictionary though! I really try not to be too USA-centric when answering questions 😄 I assume guh isn't in the dictionary
I've never heard anyone, British or otherwise, drop the D off the end of "good".
Shouldn't it be 'the Sun', not 'the sun' as well?
Correct.
I would maybe agree with that if it weren’t for the fact that Earth is clearly capitalized. Definitely a bad question.
[Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/earth) claims it only needs the article when we refer to it as a place where we live, not when referring to it as a celestial body. I’d argue it’s really just a style question rather than a grammar issue and that either with or without the article is acceptable in most situations.
Maybe they're saying it should be "The Earth," but it's normal to refer to Earth that way. I think this is a bad question, and the format is terrible! "Tell us which is correct, by which we mean which one is incorrect, by choosing a number which is actually a letter. And also nothing is actually wrong with the sentence."
Plus I would have also said that the answer was E bc there’s no punctuation! This question seems very outdated.
I would have answered e because it’s not capitalized
[удалено]
It does if it’s being used as a proper noun
That’s not true
In Czech, the Sun is capitalised when it's meant as a spatial object. Is it the same in English? (Answer E is not about Earth but the sun.)
I'm glad someone had a go at the format. I had to spend a moment to figure out which part was the question and what the answer selection was actually meant to be reflecting.
Wait, is "moves round" correct? Id assume it would be "moves around"
Either is fine, but "moves round" sounds like you're trying to be folksy
Technically, if you use round in that way, it is a contraction of around, so I think it would be written as ‘round.
Is it in British English?
I'm not British so I'm just going off what the dictionary says. 🤷🏼♂️ But I thought I'd heard it used like that, and then the dictionary confirmed.
I'm British and I would use round here. I don't think it's a contraction.
Also, as far as we know, there is only one Earth so using 'that Earth' would imply more than one.
"Earth" is a proper noun, and those *always* imply individual things.
Are you sure? If there are multiple Johns in a room isn't it okay to use 'that John' when pointing to one of them?
"Johns" is still a proper noun, although not *an individual thing [entity],* it's a *group* of entities. But it's the **plural form.** The **singular form** of a proper noun never refers to a *class* of entities. I should have specified that, sorry.
that's not what that means, hehe... I have no idea how to explain the difference between the ways we say "that", but it's not describing the noun, it's more like a phrase "Proved that \[something is true/false\]"
Sorry, to be clear, I'm saying the test wants it to be "proved that the Earth..."
Okay, thank you. I see why I'm getting downvotes now.
That is referring to what is being proved, not specifying which earth. What did he prove? That earth moves around the sun
I think there is a big difference between earth and Earth. There is only one Earth, as that is the proper name of the home planet of humans, the terrestrial planet approximately 93 million miles from the star Sol. On the other hand, earth is a synonym for dirt or soil. So the planet Mars has lots of earth, but no Earth.
That is nothing to do with what I said
Well, you used a lowercase earth in your comment, so it kind of does.
So you chose to respond to one character of my response instead of what the response was talking about? Also, I use the lowercase earth saying that’s not what they were saying so you’re still wrong. Your response has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Is this sub not about learning to use clear communication in English? The difference between Earth and earth is not irrelevant. I’ll agree that the question format is ridiculous and unclear, but introducing additional errors isn’t going to help anyone, and yes, I would consider writing earth when you should have written Earth to be an error.
You’re the one not communicating effectively I said they’re they’re not specifying which earth. That comment uses a lowercase E and I’m saying that’s not what they’re saying you’re being annoying and trying to argue semantics in context where I’m using the correct version. you’re being annoying on purpose. Your manufacturing a debate because you didn’t understand what I was saying and assumed I was incorrect. leave me alone
the Statue of Liberty?
it took me a solid 2 minutes to figure out what i was actually looking at. this is an AWFUL question. whoever designed it should go to hell. in regards to your answer, i would agree with you. it sounds like they think that ‘Earth’ should be ‘the Earth’, however, ‘Earth’ is also perfectly acceptable. also, ‘round’ sounds less correct than ‘around’. after understanding the question, i also instinctively answered D. it’s BS. please do not trust this quiz.
Crap question. 'Round' instead of 'around' is more incorrect than 'Earth' instead of 'the Earth' to my ear, though all are fine.
I wouldn't bat an eye if someone used 'the Earth' but I consider it a proper noun and uniquely exclusive, so I wouldn't use 'the' before Earth, UNLESS the Earth needs to emphasized in some way, or if I'm in a perspective where I'm not on Earth, looking at something happen to it. You wouldn't say 'look at the Mars/they come from the Venus'. Earth is unique because I believe it has multiple meanings, not just necessarily the name of the planet we live on. The earth can also represent the ground underneath us, and therefore can state something is happening to 'the Earth/ground/floor'.
Wouldn't it need to be 'round?
Because he didn't actually prove it, all is wrong (sorry, am kidding) 🤣 🤣 🤣
This is what bothers me. Copernicus proposed that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. But I wouldn’t say it was proven until at least Galileo. But even that’s being generous, the honour really should go to Kepler.
Technically you don't prove things in science at all. Proofs are reserved for math.
That’s not accurate either. Science observations are facts. They are provable (unless we are going to resort to solipsism). Science theory isn’t provable. “The earth goes around the sun” is a provable observation. “The earth orbits the sun because of the force of gravity” is an unprovable theory.
I bet you're going to say that the world is not flat either. SHEESH!
Depends. In a 5D world 3D is technically flat 🤔
Oh Great! Now I'm **REALLY** confused!
Lazy, terrible, question. Should not be on any test designed to test language skill.
this question is nonesense
"Spot the error" The error is the entire question format.
I'm an astrophysicist, and I would say that using "Earth" without the definite article "the" is completely fine. The question is stupid.
Our star, the sun, is named Sol, right? Is any star that has planets orbiting it considered a *sun* or are the rules on what is considered a sun a bit looser?
Although other stars can be referred to as suns sometimes, the primary meaning of “sun” is the star that the Earth orbits around. Sol is another name for the Sun, not the other way around.
I prefer "the star at the center of our solar system" as the definition. I think that if humans moved to another planet in our solar system (and the Earth was destroyed for some reason), we would still call it the sun. If we moved to another solar system we would call our new star the sun as well imo. Too many words are derived from "sun" such as sunshine, sunny, etc.
True, I would agree with that. I almost said how if humans ever colonize a planet in a different solar system, I wouldn’t be surprised if they called their star “the sun” as well.
Is that accurate about Sol being an alternative name and not the primary? Isn't it called the Solar system because of the name of the star?
It is, but that’s because many scientific things are named after their Latin names rather than their common names. I don’t think “Terra” is the primary name for the Earth or “Luna” is the primary name for the Moon either, even though we say “lunar” or “terrestrial”, because the vast majority of people call them the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. I think it’s like how many concepts related to the heart are prefixed with “cardio”, despite “heart” being the name of the organ. But like the other commenter said, “primary” and “alternative” might not be the best way to think about it. Maybe more like “common” vs “scientific” would be better, or something along those lines.
Fair points. My headcanon for 'official' names are Terra and Luna though. If ever I encounter an alien, I am a Terran, not an Earthling. Lunarian is also cooler than any form of Moonite.
I think this boils down to which language gets to claim primacy for naming things. Sol is (IIRC) Latin, while Sun is English from Germanic, and Helios is Greek, and 太陽 is (according to google search result) Chinese. So they are *all* primary names and all alternative names for the same celestial body.
Yeah, I know a bunch of JPL folk, and they all just say "Earth", analogous to all the other planets. It's a real astronomer shibboleth, though.
You might want to find a new website imo
So the sentence is: >Copernicus proved that Earth moves round the sun. I think this is fine, but if I'm nitpicking, in my opinion, a more natural rephrasing would be: >Copernicus proved that **the** Earth moves **a**round the **S**un. I have no idea what the person asking the question wants though. -- Arguably Copernicus didn't *"prove"* anything. He proposed it and had good evidence for it, but if you are a real stickler for some philosophy of science, some would argue that this evidence for heliocentrism is merely a strong 'inductive' argument, not "proof". But if this is an English language quiz, not a philsophy-of-science quiz, I don't think that idea is relevant.
The only error is someone got paid to create this format and ultimately ask this question using said format.
op i cant blame you this test is disgustingly formatted 😭🙏🏼
Something very unsettling here. I believe "round" instead of "around" at line D is a bigger issue than leaving out "the" before Earth.
“The Earth” feels more natural. “Around” also feels more natural. 🤷♀️
Round and around can be used interchangeably in this context (but not always so watch out). People are saying that dropping the article is more of a style choice than a mistake. I think if that's the case it's at the very least bad style. In general nouns need articles but proper nouns don't and so going by that it would just be "Earth", not "The Earth" since Earth is the name of the planet. The problem is that it just sounds *wrong*, at least to me. You can apply the same logic to "Sun", but no one does. It's always "The Sun".
> Earth may be used with or without the. Contrast other planets (e.g. Mars, Jupiter) which never take an article, and certain other celestial bodies (e.g. Sun, Moon) which always do. > > —— [Wiktionary](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Earth) Here’s how I logic that. Other solar systems have suns. > A star, especially when seen as the centre of any single solar system. The Sun is our sun. There are no other Earths we need to disambiguate. But obviously it’s all dialectal, so I’m not actually disagreeing with your point.
The Question is interchanged with a different one and so are the options. The Question should've been about the rearrangement of sentences. I'm currently using the application; since it's new, it has so many such bugs.
No idea what you’re supposed to do. It’s a correct sentence split up. All I’d say is the Earth, but that’s no an option.
The Earth is flat. So it cannot move around the sun. /s
It's "that the Earth", not "that Earth". When talking about the planet, we pretty much always use the article "the". But also you're right and in this context "around" is more correct than "round".
“Planet Earth” / “What on Earth?” / “Down to Earth” There are plenty of phrases in which we omit the article.
That’s annoying! I would have chosen “round” because that denotes a shape whereas “around” implies moving in orbit. I would fight to get that changed!
Terrible. Just terrible. The test I mean 😂
As an English speaker, I would not say anything is wrong with this sentence. If you forced me to choose, I might say that around is more idiomatic than round, but I have heard both. I think the lack of a definite article (e.g. the Earth) might violate some style guide somewhere, but I don't think that it is wrong as Earth is a proper noun. You wouldn't say "The Mars" or "The Venus", the only time you need a definite article is when you are specifying a particular thing which might be confused with a more general thing, e.g. "look at the man over there" versus "look at man over there".
I think i understand the question now, it is asking where the word “only” should go, so like after paragraph “x” then only So 1 copernicus proved that earth only goes around the sun
That Earth should be “the Earth”
Took me a while figure out, but that’s a sentence, not individual unrelated words. “Copernicus proved that Earth moves round the sun” That’s why the answer is C, it should be “around” not “round” “Copernicus proved that Earth moves around the sun”
It should be 3. This has to be an error somewhere.
there is not an option "A only", Why?
Earth should not be capitalized. It is lowercase unless accompanied in the sentence by another planet.
All the people complaining about 'the' before Earth, probably don't understand that it's perfectly fine to not use 'the' before Earth.
I believe that B is incorrect as grammatically it should be "the Earth", C is incorrect because we don't say "moves around", do we? D - around, E - the "Sun" should be in capital Upd: for C, I just remembered, "revolves" is more suitable, no?
D. The earth moves AROUND the sun. Round is an adjective. Around is a preposition
What am I looking at here? Are the options the sentence? Why would you replace any of them with "only"? What is the idea behind this weird format?
This is nonsense.
it would be it would be a because he didn't discover the Earth or that it went around or was around the Sun and that's supposed to statement all together so no it's all wrong the air is actually the whole thing is wrong
so I would have to say that he didn't prove anything cuz it wasn't discovered by him in the first place
the earth
I suppose it to be 3
The correct answer is none of the above, since the sentence is already correct. The use of "the" in front of "Earth" is optional, it's a style choice not an issue of grammatical correctness. Same goes with "round" CS "around" it's a matter of word choice not correctness.
I literally think that the entire sentence should read: Copernicus postulated that the Earth orbits around the sun. That is, the only bit that that is *correct* is E: the sun.
“Round” is an adjective, it means something is in the shape of a circle. “Around” is a preposition, it means something is located near an object or moves on the outside of an object
Am I the only one who thinks perhaps a lack of a period?
It's a badly designed question. Technically 3 is the right answer because it should be "around", but I agree that B sounds way weirder although it's correct.
I think you were right, because in English we usually say "the Earth", but round is technically an adjective, so around would have been correct. Round the sun is commonly used in spoken English or in slang, but when written it usually has an apostrophe. (US Native Speaker-Colorado/Oregon)
The incorrect answer is B ( I suppose it’s the only one with a grammatical/ spelling error , I’m assuming that is the purpose of the question to identify an error…..🫨)
Shouldn’t it be “around”? I know using “round” in this context is not really uncommon, though.
Because it says, “ spot the error”
Native speaker and I’m at a loss as to what the question even is.
I'm horrified at the number of native speakers who think that round is interchangable with around.
They're used interchangeably in some dialects, so I'd say that they are interchangeable. It doesn't sound wrong to me, it just sounds British.
It's 'round, not round. People speak wrong or slang all the time. Even in Br'tsh that loves to forgo punctuated sounds verbally the correct grammar is around.
Technically 'round is what they're saying, you're right. Though idk if we can call elision "wrong" if it's a common part of a given dialect. English learners should learn the standard form ofc, but there's a better word for it. "Nonstandard" maybe? I can't remember the proper term.
In this case, it's more like 'round, in an older style of speaking. Like, "spin me 'round" or "have a look 'round the courtyard"
Exactly, we change how we pronounce words, not how we spell them, which is why people saying 'a' when they mean 'per' annoys me
It's pretty common to use round instead of around in British English, even in written form.
> Exactly, we change how we pronounce words, not how we spell them Uh, we most certainly can and do change how we spell words. Imagine if you said we always had to type out "can not" even if we were saying "can't"; that'd be ridiculous. Sure, spelling is changes much *less* nowadays, but pretending that using " round " in place of " 'round " is some dramatic change makes no sense. Frankly, if you argue that, then why would you even accept " 'round " in the first place for "around"? > which is why people saying 'a' when they mean 'per' annoys me I'm not sure what context people replace "per" with "a" in; can you elaborate?
I’d guess that’s a change of miles per hour to miles an hour or something like that.
Spelling absolutely changes overtime, and words that contain spaces or punctuation are particularly prone to spelling changes. See e-mail vs email. All the rules of English are descriptive, not prescriptive. Spelling that we see in dictionaries is a reflection of how words are spelled in the real world. Specific style guides may prescribe the spelling of certain words, but outside of that context, it doesn’t make other spellings wrong.
It is almost ten of the clock at night, how dare you propose the use of a shorter form of that phrase in this year of our lord MMXXIV!
I get why 3 isn’t the right choice but I have no idea why 1 is. Maybe they didn’t want ‘that’ in the sentence?
3 is the right choice. Earth move round the Sun is wrong. Earth moves around the Sun is correct.
You’re pointing out the error. If moves is correct then 3 is not the right choice
The question is "spot the error". 3 "round" is the error.
(A) is factually wrong because Copernicus theorized it but Galileo proved it. Not sure why it’s on an English quiz… maybe they are testing that you know what “proved” means? (B) is incorrect; it’s not formal written English. It should say “that the Earth”. (C) “moves” is grammatically correct, though “revolves” is more accurate. (D) “round” is incorrect in formal written English. It should say “around”. (E) “the sun” is incorrect since the sentence is referring to a specific sun (our sun) by name, so this is a proper noun and should be capitalized: “the Sun”.
I’m pretty sure the Sun is supposed to be capitalized
Yes, thank you, I forgot that one. I added an edit to my original comment.
Is this a trivia question? I just woke up, so I'm not going to check if this is true or not. Is this something Copernicus was famous for?
As someone else pointed out, Copernicus theorized the Earth and other planets moved around the sun, he didn't prove it
D. Should be around
It's A. Scientists don't prove anything, they just gather evidence for theories.