0

I've found this sentence, and thought it has a bad grammar:

Audiometry, abdominal ultrasonography, echocardiography does not revealed other abnormalities.

But there are many usages of this phrase on Internet, that I'm confused now.

I thought it should be maybe like this

Audiometry, abdominal ultrasonography, echocardiography hasn't revealed other abnormalities.

or maybe

Audiometry, abdominal ultrasonography, echocardiography didn't reveal other abnormalities ( + when).

Could you please explain it to me? Thanks.

  • Could you link another usage? – Slepz Jul 19 '16 at 21:12
  • europepmc.org/articles/PMC3841637 – Cascabel Jul 19 '16 at 21:16
  • that was the example you used in the question – Slepz Jul 19 '16 at 21:19
  • @Slepz But they didn't cite it, as usually required for a quality question. I'm not the OP. – Cascabel Jul 19 '16 at 22:10
  • @Gandalf I guess but I was looking for one of the other many usages he said there were – Slepz Jul 19 '16 at 22:37
1

It's incorrect, though perhaps it's a common error (I haven't noticed it myself). "Revealed" is a past participle. You could use it with the present perfect or past perfect tense, e.g. "has not revealed" or "had not revealed." But you cannot use it with "does" or "did." In that case, as you noted, the correct usage is "does not reveal" or "did not reveal."

  • Revealed is a past tense as well as participle, being a regular verb. The sentence is incorrect for having double past tense markers. As the rest of the text was written using simple past, the sentence should have been in past tense. – Cascabel Jul 19 '16 at 22:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.