All Forum Topics

Thank you a lotRead More...

Hi, Freeguy, Either "lost" or "had lost" could be used there, but if you want to use the sequence of tenses, you should use "had lost." In "I would try to find the person who lost it," "lost" is not backshifted relative to "would find." In "I would try to find the person who had lost it," it is.Read More...

Hello, Ahmed Imam Attia, In (1), "could" suggests that you can't support each other forever, but your mother wishes you could; and "would" suggests that you won't support each other forever, but your mother wishes you would. I doubt that that is what you, or the quiz maker, wishes those sentences to mean. I think that the intended meaning is: "My mother hopes we will support each other for ever." If you wanted to use "wish" instead, use the noun "wish": (1a) My mother's wish is that we will...Read More...

Thanks a lotRead More...

Thanks a lotRead More...

Thanks a lotRead More...

Hi, David. Thank you so much, I understand!Read More...

It's probably not a productive topic for you or them to focus on. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, each with its own set of convoluted etymological trivia . If students focused on this stuff too hard, they might go on doing so their whole lives and hardly learn to speak English at all! That said, I can't deny that etymology is peripherally related to grammar. If you continue to ask such questions, I won't delete them. However, if I'm the one who answers them,...Read More...

Hello, Navi, As you know, (5) and (6) are totally ungrammatical. So (5) isn't ambiguous; it can't be used by any English speaker anywhere in any context whatsoever. (1), (2), and (3) are correct. I naturally interpret (2) ("Who are you afraid of leaving?") as a different way of saying "Who(m) are you afraid to leave?," but I think it could also relate to, e.g.: I am afraid of him leaving. "Who(m) are you afraid of leaving?" would then question the subject of the ACC-ing construction ("him...Read More...

"I must have left early, mustn't I have ?"Read More...

Hi, Navi, In my opinion, (2) and (4) are fine, but (1) and (3) are not. The present participle could be replaced with a "to"-infinitive to express purpose: 1') I didn't go to that bookstore to argue with the owner. I went there, but I just bought a dictionary and left. 3') I didn't call Nancy to complain about her husband's behavior. I just called her to ask how she was doing.Read More...

Hi, Ansonman, I agree with your friends that (2) sounds wrong. In the first place, in AmE we say: "I rode (or took) the wrong bus" (no preposition). In the second place, when the participial clause refers to a later time, it needs to refer to the subject for it not to dangle. 3) I rode/took the wrong bus, arriving at the meeting later than expected. (3) is correct because "arriving" refers to the subject "I." Instead, in (2) "taking" refers to the object "bus," and it is that that makes it...Read More...

Thank you, David. appleRead More...

Hi, Ansonman, Both sentences make sense in that context, but (2) would be better if it were phrased like this, with inversion: (2a) Never in my life have I seen such a rare seashell.Read More...

Hi, Ansonman: No, "sell very high" is not correct. You should say "sell very well."Read More...

In answer to (1), gerunds can be preceded by objective pronouns and possessive determiners. Anyway, here follow a couple of examples I found on the Internet where the gerund comes immediately after "to": - Unrest can lead to rioting . - Some folks understand what it means to pay attention to finding the right balance with respect to diversity. In reply to (2), I don't like sentence (a), since the presence of the preposition "of" renders the definite article necessary: a'. It was argued in...Read More...

Thanks a lot, Gustavo.Read More...

This is the book I extracted the sentence from. Thank you.Read More...

Thank you so much, Gustavo.Read More...

Excellent points, Ahmed. I agree with you wholeheartedly. If the action were repeatable or durative (e.g., "There has been a decrease in the number of applications since we have been here " -- in which "been here" can refer either to something indefinitely durative or to a mere visit), then the sentence would be acceptable. But the appearance of the report of the newspaper falls into neither of those categories. Regarding "was appeared" and "has been appeared," both would be totally...Read More...

Thank you Mr AhmedRead More...

Thank you. I'll read up on the concessive linker.Read More...

Thank you very much, David, Yes, that makes sense! Respectfully, NaviRead More...