correction

[lingual]

Hi everyone, happpppppppyyyyy to find youuuuuu
 Would you please help me with these sentences, do these sentences are grammatical and meaningful in English?
 1. How come using violence not okay at home, at school, but okay between countries?
 2. You must find a comprise [I think it should be compromise] that is agreeable to both side.
 3. The poison is very dangerous, in fact, it is deadly/dying. [
I think if “it” refers to “the poison”, “deadly” should be used. But if “it” refers to something else like an animal that eats the poison “dying” should be used, am I right??]
thanks a lot.

[Daniel]

Would you please help me with these sentences, do these sentences are grammatical and meaningful in English?

In what sense? Is this for someone learning to speak Standard English? Or are you looking at dialectal variation, etc.?

1. How come using violence not okay at home, at school, but okay between countries?

In Standard English, we never omit the verb "be" in a full main clause. Corrected:

1. How come using violence is not okay at home, [or] at school, but okay between countries?

Also "how come" is very informal-- used often in speech, but it would not belong in an academic paper for example.

2. You must find a comprise [I think it should be compromise] that is agreeable to both side.

Assuming "compromise" the only remaining problem is the plural S:

2. You must find a compromise that is agreeable to both sides.

3. The poison is very dangerous, in fact, it is deadly/dying. [
I think if “it” refers to “the poison”, “deadly” should be used. But if “it” refers to something else like an animal that eats the poison “dying” should be used, am I right??]

Yes:
Deadly: causes death
Dying: will die

"The tiger is deadly" = dangerous
"The tiger is dying" = sick

The only other problem with that sentence is the comma. You need "and" or a semi-colon ";" or a period, not a comma. That's just for written rules of English, though.


Also, I am moving this to the "English" forum.

[Jase]

1. How come using violence is not okay at home, [or] at school, but okay between countries?

I would also add is to the final part of the contrast. I would also change “okay” to acceptable and, as you said, “how come” to why. The word “but” could also be changed to while or yet for the contrast.

1. Why is it not acceptable to use violence at home or at school, while it is acceptable to do so against other countries?

This is a more precisely worded sentence, in my opinion. It expresses the idea that I was reading from the original formulation of the question. Particularly, it seems to be an argument phrased as a question. The argument is: if it is unacceptable to use violence at home or at school, then it should also be unacceptable to use violence against other countries in the political sphere.