It's such a headache to try to navigate when to put "critical race theory" in quotation marks...see the three below instances here in bold: https://join.substack.com/p/ho...ld-history-be-taught Zinnophobia is inherently important, but it’s also extra important right now due to all of the controversy around “critical race theory” —“CRT” is short for “critical race theory” . https://join.substack.com/p/control Detmer comments as follows in the interview and note that “CRT” is short for...Read More...

A closer look at the numbers behind summer vacation shows the growing importance of holiday weekends, which helps explain [ how travel has defied predictions of its demise t o emerge from the pandemic stronger than ever ] . I'm inclined to say that the underlined infinitival clause is an adjunct in clause structure. It functions as a modifier in the bracketed clause, where it indicates a resultant or subsequent meaning.Read More...

Hi, Maged Hosny, As a linker of addition, "as well as" is halfway between both parts of speech. Quirk and Greenbaum define it as a quasi-coordinator. On page 275 of their A University Grammar of English , they explain that quasi-coordinators sometimes resemble coordinating conjunctions and give this example: - He publishes as well as prints his own books. But they add that they can also have a prepositional or subordinating role, as in: - As well as printing the books, he publishes them.Read More...

It's still OK to use "lady's man." Opinions will differ as to how old-fashioned it is. Similar terms include "Romeo," "Cassonova," "Don Juan," "Prince Charming."Read More...

Hi, Andrew—No, "OK" does not apply to the part of the sentence in bold. It applies only to the first clause. That clause spells out the meaning of "OK" in the context; it is the proposition to which "OK" expresses assent. It's like saying: "I recognize that people don't really want to talk about Vietnam." Notice that it would be possible to have: " OK, but I can do a movie about the JFK assassination . That way I can slide Vietnam into the conversation." Even in this case, "OK" would not...Read More...

Hi, Erdal K., In English, we can use V-ing to refer to previous, simultaneous or subsequent actions performed by the subject of the main or a higher-level clause. In the first sentence, there is an adverbial clause starting with "when" whose subject, "the fighter jet," is the subject of "crashed" as well as of "killing," "splintering" and "spewing," all of which are contained within the same "when"-clause, so there's nothing grammatically wrong with that. In the second sentence, "the...Read More...

1. Well, if we were visiting earth from another planet, I suppose "JFK [assassination nonsense]" could be interpreted as being some brand of assassination nonsense. Fortunately, human beings have common sense. We don't need to be so heavy-handed in punctuation that we are writing for those who lack common sense or who wish perversely to misunderstand. 2. If you mean "[hardcore conspiracy] theorists," then you should go right ahead and use a hyphen. What "hardcore conspiracy theorists" means...Read More...

Thanks so much for this incredible help! I really appreciate it! I'll go with the third option that you mentioned!Read More...

Hi, Lou, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange, Both are correct, however, 'will' works better here because there is no present reality. It is a kind of exaggeration. 'Are going to' is the logical answer here. It is something that is about to happen, not something in the remote future. Both are correct.Read More...

@Ahmed towab @Gustavo, Co-ModeratorRead More...

Hi, Ahmed, Thank you, you helped me a lot!Read More...

Greetings, While I find BillJ's analysis plausible, I think there is something to be said for the analysis toward which you are inclined, Robby. Please note that BillJ is not saying the "when"-clause is a "nominal relative clause"; he is saying the "when"-clause is a subordinate interrogative clause, i.e., an embedded question. I feel that there may have been some miscommunication when you asked whether "know" could alternatively be analyzed as intransitive in "You don't seem to know when...Read More...

Hi, Gustavo and David, really thanks for your supports as always.Read More...

Hi, Annetik, I'd put "perfectly well" in the middle of the verb phrase to avoid cutting off the accusative -ing structure: - I could perfectly well hear them discussing me.Read More...

If it said to be a mass noun, it cannot be "also used in the plural." When used in the plural, it is a count noun.Read More...

Excellent point, Gustavo. I suspected that lurking in my grammatical blindspot was some type of acceptable reduced-adverbial-clause -ing construction following "if." You have found it and have described its semantics very well.Read More...

Personally, I don't feel I can help you any more than I already have. David has also given you some good answers. I'm afraid you might be looking for some hard-and-fast rules where there are none. That colleague you once mentioned might be right about your being too demanding when it comes to editing. I hope we can continue to be of help with other topics.Read More...

Thanks a lot AhmedRead More...

Thank you very muchRead More...

Then, what is the meaning as follows. a) The boy(or gury) is not so old that he can go to high school. b) The guy(or boy) is not so old that he can't go to high school. q1) Are those sentence correct? q2) If right, can I rewrite as follows?": a) The boy is not old enough to go to high school. (meaning he must be under 10 year old.) b) The boy is too old to go the high school (meanging he must be over 30 year old )Read More...

Thank you!Read More...

Hi, Kuen—The sentence has inversion and an incorrect verb form. The subject is "a lot of challenges," which is plural. "A lot of" quantifies "challenges," the plural head of the subject noun phrase: "Unfortunately, a lot of challenges come along with that" / "Unfortunately, along with that come a lot of challenges."Read More...

Hello, Nagy—If, as I suspect, you want to bake bread in the pan, you can use "I'd like to use the pan to bake bread." If you want to do two separate things, to use the pan (perhaps for pancakes) and to bake bread (perhaps in something other than the pan), you can use "I'd like to use the pan and bake bread."Read More...

Hi, Perriced—In the adjective phrase (not a sentence) "Happy to hear that from you," "that" functions as the direct object of "hear." "From you" is an (optional) prepositional-phrase adjunct/modifier. The complement of the verb (the direct object) needs to come before the adjunct modifying that entire verb phrase, except in special cases where the direct object is "heavy" enough to be post-posed: We are happy to hear from you the exciting news about your daughter's being admitted to such a...Read More...

Thanks so much! It's not quite Alito saying it, though, is it? I'm not sure the phrase's exact origin or how to attribute it, though certainly Alito's leaked draft mentions it...what do you think?Read More...

Hi, David. Thank you for your prompt response and the links that confirm the pronunciation. It's a relief to know that I wasn't pronouncing it wrongly Thanks so very much for your help.Read More...

Hi, Azz and Ahmed—Thank you, Ahmed, for your useful comments on Azz's pair of sentences here. I'm going to take a somewhat different approach because I think that Azz's question here has strictly to do with syntax and logic. In (a), it is unclear whether "all of the precious paintings that were on the walls" were stolen or whether only some of them were. It is also unclear in (a) whether the diamonds were on the walls or whether only the precious paintings were. Syntactically, (a) may be...Read More...

Hi, Gustavo, really appreciate. With my sincere RESPECTs to You.Read More...

Thank you!Read More...

Hi, Erdal, First of all, please note that the participle of "come" is "come," not "came": - I have come across this sentence. In reply to your question, "constantly worrying" refers to the subject "a creative leader" but is governed by "not." The subject complement is formed by two main components: - A creative leader is self-aware and (is) not [ weighed down with insecurities, constantly worrying about how they are perceived by their employees and peers ].Read More...

Hi, David, really appreciate your clear explanation.Read More...

Hahahaha! I tried, David! Thank you so much, David, for putting this in perspective for me. You've enriched my understanding by saying that Here functions as an interjection that is (and I quote from what you wrote) merely performing an abstract function as a discourse marker and social cue . And thank you for the links. Grateful as always, GilbertRead More...

Hi, David, how could I thank you enough? Gustavo has almost saved me from another headache with a conditional sentence. With my sincere RESPECTs to all of you in G/Exchange~!!Read More...

Thank you so much! I think that you totally nailed it!Read More...

this is how I described it: there’s a resident of Chennai —Lakshmanan—whose “job involves standing for long hours outdoors at construction sites, pounding screws with careful precision onto steel rods”Read More...

1 uses the unreal past and expresses a strong wish. It means that the other person is not in the habit of doing something and I would rather he did it this evening. It is much more common than 2. I think 2 has more than one interpretation. This is could be the future subjunctive, in which we use 'would' instead of 'will' and here the time is not so general as 1. Also, there might be an implied conditional: "I would rather he would do it this evening (if everything went fine)''. A third...Read More...

Tony, it is unclear to me what the second "today" refers to. Does it refer to the completion of the tasks? What is clearly wrong is that what comes after "and" seems to lack a verb phrase, or part of a verb phrase, to make full sense: - (It was) Great to speak with you today and ((it was) nice to see?) the great efforts ...Read More...

Thanks David! 1) Just confirming so in the below sentence, I should use on, instead of at? Mr Axelson is currently on the top of the ranking for the BWF. 2) Just to be safe, as on can be used as a substitute for on. Just use "on" for all sentences. What's your thoughts on this?Read More...

Thanks! I'll do that!Read More...

Thank goodness! I really prefer "much of the problem" so I really wanted to be able to do that paraphrase! Thank you so much for your incredible help!Read More...

Hi, dukulrahman12345—The sentence may be paraphrased like this: There was nowhere that a rock of that size could have come from. If you changed "to have come" to "to come," the related paraphrase would be: There was nowhere that a rock of that size could come from.Read More...

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your help!Read More...

Hello, dukulrahman12345, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Both sentences are correct (assuming "would have been dead" is used in (2)), but they have different meanings. In (1), it is implied that the speaker has the pen knife now . A counterfactual inference about the present is drawn. In (2), it is implied that the speaker had the pen knife in the past . A counterfactual inference about the past and/or the present is drawn.Read More...