C2 Key Word Transformations üben (Kostenlos)

Musterergänzung: came to light after / came to light following

The flaw only came to light after the second experiment. Come to light means become apparent; came preserves past time, while the printed only and inserted after preserve the restriction on when it was discovered. The inserted words are came / to / light / after: four. Had come to light before would reverse the timing, and came into light would lose the idiom. CAME TO LIGHT FOLLOWING also has four words and preserves the same timing; following functions as a preposition meaning after.

Musterergänzung: little chance of the committee approving / little chance that the committee will approve / little chance of the committee's approving / little chance the committee will approve

There is very little chance of the committee approving the proposal. Very unlikely becomes very little chance, preserving low probability without asserting impossibility. Of introduces the -ing clause with its own subject, the committee. Inserted words: little / chance / of / the / committee / approving: six. No chance would make the judgement absolute and change the meaning. LITTLE CHANCE THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL APPROVE is a seven-word alternative using a that-clause instead of of + -ing. The possessive gerund alternative LITTLE CHANCE OF THE COMMITTEE’S APPROVING also has six words; the content-clause alternative may omit that, giving LITTLE CHANCE THE COMMITTEE WILL APPROVE (six).

Musterergänzung: did it dawn on me that I had / did it dawn on me I had / did it dawn on me that I'd / did it dawn on me I'd

Only when Lena pointed it out did it dawn on me that I had made a mistake. Dawn on someone means become clear to them. Initial only when requires inversion in the main clause: did it dawn, not it dawned. The past perfect had made places the mistake before the realisation. Inserted words: did / it / dawn / on / me / that / I / had: eight. Leaving out had would fail to complete the printed made a mistake naturally. That can be omitted in this content clause, giving the seven-word alternative DID IT DAWN ON ME I HAD. I’d can stand for I had here; its contracted forms retain the eight- or seven-word count because contractions count as their full forms.

Musterergänzung: no account must you disclose / no account are you to disclose / no account should you disclose

On no account must you disclose the password. On no account expresses the same unconditional prohibition as whatever happens ... must not. Fronting the negative phrase requires inversion: must you, not you must. The five inserted words are no / account / must / you / disclose. Must retains the original force directly; the model avoids weakening an absolute requirement. NO ACCOUNT ARE YOU TO DISCLOSE is also accepted (six words): are you to expresses the instruction, with inversion after the fronted negative phrase. NO ACCOUNT SHOULD YOU DISCLOSE (five words) is another natural formal prohibition: on no account makes this an absolute ban, not a mild suggestion.

Musterergänzung: absolutely no notice of / no notice whatsoever of / no notice at all of / no notice of / not the slightest notice of

The manager took absolutely no notice of our objections. Take no notice of means ignore; absolutely preserves completely. The accepted insertions have four, four and five words respectively, all within three to eight. Merely took little notice would allow some attention and weaken the original claim. NOTICE remains a noun in the fixed pattern take notice of. NO NOTICE OF (three words) already expresses complete disregard; NOT THE SLIGHTEST NOTICE OF (five words) makes that lack of attention emphatic.

Musterergänzung: not bear out the claim

The evidence does not bear out the claim that the medicine is effective. Bear out means confirm or support. Does carries present tense, so bear remains in the base form. The five inserted words are not / bear / out / the / claim. Bear with means be patient with someone and would not express evidential support. The sentence rejects support for the claim; it does not prove the opposite claim.