Activity

Hi Hassan, the answer is "is". To date you have never climbed a dangerous mountain. The fact remains true. Hence, "was", which relates to the past, cannot be used in your sentence.Read More...

We're happy to see you again, Joshua, and hope that you stick around. I think that you will find yourself getting used to the new system in no time. Just keep asking questions. Your English will thank you for it.Read More...

Hi, Ruifeng, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "pile of Ns" with plural conjugation. "Group of Ns," however, can take either singular or plural conjugation. The same question goes FOR "group," you could have said.Read More...

Hi, Gustavo, It is now clear to me why the article writer used the past perfect in the relevant sentence instead of the present perfect. Thank you again for you help.Read More...

Hello, Coco, Sentence (2) is fine, but you are right that there is something wrong about (1). What is wrong is that there is a conflict in the tenses. "Goes" (present tense) should be "went" (past tense). You can say: Hardly a day went by that I didn't think about her. Hardly a day goes by that I don't think about her.Read More...

Marvellous! Thanks, David.Read More...

Thank you both very much, The problem seems to be sentence '3'. At first, I really thought it could work, although I knew that I was sort of pushing things! The more I think about it, the more I have doubts. Gustavo doesn't seem to have a particular problem with it, but David does. If I understand David's reply correctly, the problem with '3' is ' her'. That word implies that the ring did really belong to her. But then we learn that it didn't. There seems to be a contradiction. I thought...Read More...

I appreciate it.Read More...

Hi, Kis: I've never used Euros. If "€" were "$," $7.99 would be pronounced "seven-ninety-nine" or "seven dollars and ninety-nine cents." If you want to know how to pronounce "€7.99" in English, you should ask an English speaker who uses Euros.Read More...

Thank you very much, Gustavo and David, The other thread was not in my files. I just added it. I had forgotten about it actually, or else I wouldn't have asked this question. There is nothing to unveil. The sentences sound bad and are bad! My apologies! Respectfully, NaviRead More...

Subhajit, you say "how I should use gerunds." The point is that sometimes you don't need to use a gerund, or any kind of word in particular, if you want to sound natural. Language does not work that way, enabling the use of any category of word at all times. When the (implicit) subject of the gerund is the same as that of the main clause, it is incorrect, or in the best case extremely awkward, to use the possessive as in your second sentence above. Why should you use it? In this other case...Read More...

Hi, Kis, Yes, they are both correct. I would find it much more natural not to use "will" in that particular context. So I prefer (a), but both are correct. There are no differences between them in that case. But take a case like this: "I hope he is there." Without context, "is" can refer to the present or the future. There is no way, however, to suppose that "will be" in the sentence "I hope he will be there" can refer to the present. Thus, "will" can remove ambiguity sometimes.Read More...

Thank you so much.Read More...

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it so much. Would you please tell me more about "fused psrticiple".Read More...

David, Your "Object" example, of course, can also refer to the meat of the turkey rather than the bird itself. Hence (or is that "hens"?), the second sentence in the example could say that they "ate some fresher turkey instead". Mostly, though, I wanted to bring back a similar example that you shared with me years ago, which was: I think that you asked me at the time which of these meanings came to mind: But, of course, a turkey can't be hungry if it's stuffed. I understand that this doesn't...Read More...