Turned out to be or turn out to be?

I was just thinking the same as I read this thread. Poor woman/child/cat?

My cat had acute kidney failure and had to be put down.

More worried about the poor woman than being pedantic. No problem as long as the message is conveyed quickly and accurately to all who need to know.

I would say, ”Blood tests revealed acute kidney failure”.
I hope the person in question will be okay x

'She has acute kidney failure and her blood tests turned out to be very bad.'
it's a very interesting sentence. It begs whether the blood tests are very bad because she has acute kidney failure or as well as kidney failure. That is what needs clarifying.

Seems fine to me,

Shandy3 - yes of course you can say 'very bad'. It's correct in many circumstances. 'Bad' isn't an absolute in the same way 'unique' (eg) is. There can be degrees of badness. (Oh lordy - the repetition of 'bad' is reminding me of D. Trump!)

I myself would have written,

She has acute kidney failure and her blood tests have turned out to be very bad.

as I understood you, Lizrj, to mean that the blood tests were taken when acute kidney failure was suspected, but your sentence is grammatically correct.

Yes, we were taught at school that "good" "bad" "perfect" were absolute conditions and that no-one could be very, good, exceedingly bad, or nearly perfect. However, very few people use these words in that way.

Do any of you not say, "His cold was very bad", or "The weather was really very good for the wedding" or other things like this?

Turned would be correct. .

But English takes a capital E. I feel sympathetic towards anyone nervous about their grammar usage as I feel so about numbers: this knowledge of my own maths shortcomings helped me teach adults without patronising them.

There are degrees of 'feeling' bad but not in english grammar.
Any degree expressed would be classed as a filler word in english grammar.
However you choose to express it is entirely a personal choice.
However the question was is this grammatically correct.

Lizrj – for any future grammar questions, I suggest posting them on the English Only forum at WordReference (https://forum.wordreference.com/forums/english-only.6/). I’m one of the regular contributors on there, which saves me from dying of boredom now that I’ve been put out to grass and am living on a shoestring!

Basically what everyone seems to be saying is that there are 1000 ways to say it, all completely fine provided the listener or reader gets the gist of what you are trying to say - which is perfectly clear from your original post

Turned out sounds right. However, the blood tests themselves were not bad . That implies incorrect or faulty testing. Add the word results, which will clarify.

....And actually if you read the post again it compares something that is “bad”and “very bad”so you are incorrect. The post was trying to say that the situation doesn’t warrant being called “very” bad when severe renal failure is very bad indeed when compared to anything on an individual basis.

But there can be degrees if bad?! Just as there can be degrees of good.

It is actually very serious to have renal failure so I’m not sure how other matters such as a wife leaving are being compared? I think a situation where you could end up on dialysis and your mortality and morbidity being significantly impacted upon is up there with any bad thing

The comparison was made to illustrate that there can he’d degrees of ‘bad’ it wasn’t used in relation to kidney failure but in a (correct) response to a comment that there cannot be degrees of bad.

I also don’t agree you can’t say very bad. Bad, very bad, extremely bad, good, very good, extremely good. It’s normal to state how bad or good something is. It’s bad to steal it’s extremely bad to kill someone. Very bad is fine. I think your grammar is fine. Have confidence in yourself op! Hope whoever you’re talking about is ok.

You could put ... as her blood test turned out bad rather than and. It’s the blood tests that have confirmed renal failure so they are not separate issues.

Grammar seems ok to me. Knowing about renal issues, there are different degrees of renal function failure so it is fair to comment on how bad the results are. The results on renal function can determine your near immediate future health and expected outcome. It is actually very serious to have renal failure so I’m not sure how other matters such as a wife leaving are being compared? I think a situation where you could end up on dialysis and your mortality and morbidity being significantly impacted upon is up there with any bad thing.

She has acute kidney failure and the results from her blood tests were not within the normal ranges.

I don’t agree about the very there can be shades of bad Losing your house is bad losing your house and wife is very bad
About the original thread I believe it is turned out as it’s something you have already found out so needs to be in the past tense but as others have said unnecessary and rivernana sentence is perfect

I would just say 'her blood tests revealed acute kidney failure'.

Very is the wrong word. You can't be more bad, than bad. So very is known as a 'filler' word in this instance.

She has acute kidney failure. Her blood test results are not good.

I think its incorrect to say "her blood tests were very bad" It would be better to say
"The results of her blood tests were very bad" or is that taking pedantry too far.