What is wrong with this sentance?

Question

"If not for the fire, no ship could spot them so they could have spent their entire lives on that island."

I believe its a punctuation error.

Answer 1

The tense is incorrect --If not for the fire (phrase)  (could be present, past or future) so it should agree with the rest of the sentence.  Therefore;  you could leave it out or place it somewhere else in the sentence.  Let's try it ....No ship could spot them..."could" makes it present tense -

so they could have spent their entire lives on that island

"could have"indicates some type of past or future tense

spent is past tense, too - so they do not agree with 1st part of sentence.

How about "No ship could have seen them, if not for the fire and they could have spent their entire lives on that island"....Does it sound better to you?  It does to me.  This joins the tense of the verbs so that the sentence makes more sense.

Answer 2

I think it's a run-on.  Try "If not for the fire, no ship would have spotted them. They could have spent their entire lives on that island"

Answer 3

after them should be a comma

Answer 4

I don't think you should say "no ship could..."  How about, "If not for the fire, the ship could not spot them.  They could have spent their lives on that island".  Break up the sentence too.  Or, "If not for the fire, the ship could not spot them; they could have spent their lives on that island".

Answer 5

No, Eric, it's the tense. I believe it should be written: "If not for the fire, no ship would have spotted them, so they could have spent their lives on that island."

Answer 6

there should be a coma after "if not for the fire, no ship could spot(,)"

Answer 7

"If not for the fire, no ships could have spotted them.  They could have spent their entire lives on that island"   maybe

Answer 8

"They" and "them" are pronouns, but the reader has no idea to whom or to what those pronouns refer.  Pronouns should be reasonably close to their object noun.  

Also, it is a run-on sentence; it should be broken into two sentences or at least broken up with a semi-colon.

Answer 9

Firstly sentence is spelt wrong.

Id break the sentence up into 2.and yeah i think its the punctuation

Answer 10

hmm..i think it might be:

if not for the fire, no ship would have spotted them, so they could have spent their entire lives on that island.

I'm not entirely sure though but yeah.

Answer 11

Should be a ;  after them

Answer 12

"If not for the fire, no ship would have spotted them; they could have spent their entire lives on that island."

Answer 13

If it were not for the fire, no ship could have spotted them and they could have spent their entire lives on that island.

But for the fire, no ship could have spotted them and they could have spent their entire lives on that island.

Answer 14

I don't normally correct people's spelling, but since you are asking a word question anyway, let's start by changing "sentance" to "sentence."

Now for the sentence:

1) There is a shift in tense. Unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise, you should keep all the things that happen (or could happen) together in the same tense.

CORRECT: "No ship spotted them, so they spent their entire lives on that island."

CORRECT: "No ship has ever spotted them, so they have spent their entire lives on that island."

INCORRECT: "No ship spotted them, so they have spent their entire lives on that island."

However, CORRECT: "No ship spotted them that day, so they have spent their entire lives on that island."

2) The conjuction "so" should be preceded by a comma in this sentence.

ANSWER: The given sentence should be corrected to read:

"If not for the fire, no ship could have spotted them, so they could have spent their entire lives on that island."

Stylistically speaking, I would have used a modal verb other than "could," but I do not think that this is what you are asking.

Answer 15

It's a run-on sentence. Rewrite it like this

"They could have spent their entire lives on that island if it weren't for the ship (passengers?) spotting the fire."  

Answer 16

"If it wasn't for the fire no ship would be able to spot them so they could have spent their entire lives on that island."

Answer 17

either a coma or a semi colon between them and so

Answer 18

well one, "sentance" is spelled wrong, its SENTENCE xD

"if it wasnt for the fire"

Answer 19

u need a semicolon ; or a hyphen - between them and they, and take 'so' out. ur connecting two different thoughts that are related and can be in two different sentences.

Answer 20

I don't think it's necessarily a punctuation error but the way it's worded. "... so they could..." doesn't fit well. Maybe if you remove the so and add a semi-colon it could work out better.

"If not for the fire, no ship could have spotted them; they could have spent their entire lives on that island.

=]

Answer 21

there should be a comma after "them" for a pause.

"If not for the fire, no ship could spot them, so they could have spent their entire lives on that island."

You spelled "sentence" wrong by the way.

Answer 22

i think you should take that comma out (after fire) and put it after them........