Thank you very much.Read More...

Hello, Fujibei, The first "us" is the direct object, and the second "us" is the object complement, that is, a complement that refers to the first "us." Compare with: "Individual things that make us different from others ." A better way of saying "Individual things that make us, us" would be, in my opinion, "Individual things that make us who we are ."Read More...

Thank you, David. Wow! Prince of Whales!! Tweeting is sometimes dangerous, because they write and send the messages very quickly. appleRead More...

Gustavo and David, thank you for your replies. In a later email from my tech writer friend, he clarified that he agreed with me.Read More...

Hello, MaaAdjoa, and welcome to GE! I agree with Gustavo's answer and, like you, share his preference for (1). The hyphen after "time" in (1) is sometimes referred to as a suspensive hyphen . Another option is to use a relative clause: 4- a manner that saves time and money I'm not saying that I prefer (4) to (1). There is a good chance that I would use (1).Read More...

Hi, Freeguy, Syntactically, either interpretation is possible, and ellipsis is not involved: 1) They could [ travel farther from the landing site to investigate more of the lunar environment ] and [ collect a wider range of soil and rock sample ] . 2) The could travel farther from the landing site to [ investigate more of the lunar environment ] and [ collect a wider range of soil and rock sample ] . In (1), two verb phrases are coordinated as complements of the modal "could": the verb...Read More...

Hi, Azz, Where you said above: "*He'll set things straight before," I'm sure you meant to say "He set things straight before." I think both interpretations are possible. Interpretation (2) might be a case of "excessive conciseness," so to say, but I wouldn't say it's wrong. Context can help, for example: - When we bought this house, this wall was white. Then we painted it gray. Now we'll paint it white again. (Now we'll paint it white + As a result the wall will be white again.)Read More...

So when I say about a bag (or bags) of some certain men, can I say: These are some men's bag. / These are men's bag. These are some men's bags. / These are men's bags. Thank you for all your help!Read More...

No, Menem, you can't. You need "go" or "should go" there.Read More...

Hello, Abdullah, Based on the information presented by Gustavo in this thread , yes, you can say: It's boring waiting at bus stops. It's boring to wait at bus stops.Read More...

This question has already been asked and answered twice in the last day.Read More...

Hello, Ruifeng, Yes, you can use "again and again" for that purpose. "Again and again" is commonly used that way, and your example is fine.Read More...

Great reply .Read More...

Yes, I realize that you guys are looking for a detailed explanation, and I have decided to turn this into a research project. Please give me about a week, and I will try to clear up the mystery of will versus be going to to the best of my ability. As a native speaker, I never (or almost never) have to think about it. As a grammar-forum moderator, though, I encounter the question regularly, and I very often disagree with Egyptian "model answers" in this department! The distinction between...Read More...

Thank you very much, David, Just to clarify, I thought one should say 1 b) In the doorway, stood a tall dark woman. and 1a) In the doorway, a tall dark woman stood. sounded bad. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned inversion. Gratefully, NaviRead More...

Hi, Islam Mohamed, Both answers are correct. I would more naturally use "is going to," but "will" works perfectly well there. If a student answers "will," the answer should not be marked incorrect. It would be good if another choice were added: "both" (the true model answer).Read More...

Hi, Mr. Ahmed, This is the second question that has been asked twice today: https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/topic/future-21Read More...

Hello, Ahmed Imam Attia, Someone else has asked the very same question today. Please see the answer I have just given Abdullah Mahrouse at the link below: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...or-first-conditionalRead More...

Hello, Rasha, We use the progressive in the passive voice in the same types of circumstances in which we use the progressive in the active voice. The progressive allows us to talk about what is or was happening at a certain time or time period. The comma before "to help planes land" tells us that the main point of the sentence is that it was the first time radar was used at all. The fact that it was to help planes land is a parenthetical detail. I don't know whether you have access to the...Read More...

David, many thanks for your reply. Much appreciated - BRead More...

Hi, Ahmed55, Yes, "will go" is incorrect. You have titled this thread "present or future," but "go" is not the present tense here. It is the present subjunctive . The common alternative to using the present subjunctive in a clause complementing "suggest" is to use "should" + [base form]. She suggested that he go fishing tomorrow and he liked the idea. She suggested that he should go fishing tomorrow and he liked the idea.Read More...

I agree with your tense choice, Ahmed. "Mention" is normally a transitive verb. That seems to be the motivation for your revision to "Before what you mentioned about him." Webster's dictionary doesn't even list an intransitive usage. But I do recognize it, and it's fairly common among native speakers. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) devotes a fair amount of space to it. I'd describe this intransitive usage as normal but a bit informal.Read More...

Hi, Emad, We say: ' a depressing film'. See here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...epressing-depressiveRead More...

Hi, Ansonman, No, we don't say "take a rest." We do, however, say "take a break." You could say: I was very tired and had to take a few breaks. I was very tired and stopped to rest a few times.Read More...

Hi, David, Sorry for my delay in reply. No, Mr. Swan doesn't make any comments for that matter.He just presents facts. Thanks again for your help.Read More...

Hello, Ansonman, Your friends are correct in this case. Let me know if there is an issue here that you wish to explore in more detail.Read More...

Hi, Ansonman, "Transition" can be used as a verb, and the verb is sometimes used in the progressive. But that sentence makes no sense. Perhaps he was trying to say: (1a) Are you planning to make a career change? (1b) Are you transitioning into a new career? (1c) Are you going through a career transition?Read More...

Re: contain vs includeRead More...

Hello, Jeff2019, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange! What was the context in which you heard people say that? Did they say it once? If so, what was happening in the surrounding extra-linguistic context when they said it? Did they habitually say it? If so, what were the circumstances in which it was habitually said? Answers to the above will help us to ascertain the meaning. Once we know the meaning and the context, I will be able to tell you whether the usage is correct in American English.Read More...

Hello, Emad, Both answers are right. Because of the adverbial "when the crime was committed," the past perfect is not needed to show that the working occurred further back in the past than "was able to prove." But the past perfect is also correct. The fact that the past perfect isn't necessary doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. And if you think the test makers believe (mistakenly) that the past perfect is needed, it would be prudent to use it.Read More...

Hello, Rasha Assem, I agree with David. The clues to interpret that the past is real (not unreal or "subjunctive," as you say) in the original sentence are "last week" in the condition and "had" in the result. If "last week," which refers to one particular broadcast of the program, and "had," which refers to one specific occurrence in the past (the fact that the program left many questions about trees unanswered) were not present, then we could interpret the condition as describing a...Read More...

Thanks David so much for the examples you have provided me. It helps to see how the idea is expressed naturally. Thanks again.Read More...

I'd like to add something to this historical answer given by the Longman editor. Even though the main clause of conditionals like "If you get this answer right, you have a good brain" refers to the present, there is an implicit element of futurity. Notice that the "if"-clause ("if you get this answer right") does refer to something in the future. At the present time, it is unknown whether "you will get this answer right." If you do, then the conclusion will follow. Therefore the real meaning...Read More...

Thank you so much, Gustavo! I agree your sentence (5) is better than (1). The sentence (1) may be a less preferrable form, but it can be considered grammatical, which I think is interesting.Read More...

Hi, Mr Ahmed, Please put your question in your post. Initially I had no idea what you were trying to ask. Then I looked at your title and was able to infer what you intended your question to be. The reader should not have to work so hard to find the question. The answer is "respectable." The individual being spoken of had a position in the medical profession that was worthy of respect . That's what "respectable" means. Whether or not people actually respected the position, it was worthy of ...Read More...

Hi, Mr Ahmed, You mean to say either " I'm totally confused about the usage of historic and historical" or " I get totally confused about the use of historic and historical." You mean they make the matter more confusing to you. The distinction between "historic" and "historical" has been discussed many times on GE. See this thread: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...storic-vs-historicalRead More...

Thank you so much, David. You gave me the very answer I needed. appleRead More...

Hi, Navi, Proper names are the most specific of all nouns and, as such, will not normally take a defining or restrictive clause. That said, I find (2), (4) and (6) to be much better than the others. I also find (6) to be superior to (4), where the thing described (the shout) is defined by means of a person (the shout was not the person, but came from the person). The person-person connection is clearer in (6): - I heard someone shout. It was John , running towards me like a madman.Read More...

Hi, Ahmed55, Both "is" and "was" are correct. You can take your pick. with backshift : My sister asked why the sky was blue. without backshift : My sister asked why the sky is blue. You don't need to backshift with eternal truths, but backshift isn't forbidden with them, either. The sky isn't always blue, I realize, but it is when there is daylight and there are no clouds or any other conditions clouding the view of the sky.Read More...

Re-reading the question above, I must say that I completely agree with David's answer. This question is nothing but rubbish.Read More...

I agree with Ahmed_btm here. The same exercise was asked about in one of Rasha Assam's recent threads, and Gustavo gave an answer along similar lines: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...c/reported-speech-47Read More...

Yes, here you go. You have to pay to use it, unless your school gives you access: https://www.oed.com/Read More...

Hello, Rasha, Both answers are possible, but the more natural answer is "deep." "Dig deep" does not always mean "investigate" and, when it does mean "investigate," it's not an idiom; "dig" and "deep" are simply being used non-physically in that usage. "Dig deep" is an idiom when it means (a) to draw heavily on one's financial resources (dig deep into one's pockets) or (b) to draw on one's own energetic resources and make one's best effort. Each of those meanings is non-literal. Lastly, the...Read More...

Hello, Rasha, With reported warnings, orders, etc., we generally can't tell what the original sentence was. In this case, the original sentence for (2) could have been the one that you think it is, but it could equally have been "Don't talk in class," "You are not to talk in class," etc. Incidentally, I think (1) would make more sense like this: 1a- He warned me to participate in class.Read More...

Hello, Navi, While none of them is ungrammatical, (1) is the most natural choice for me. It would be normal to write it with "if" instead of "because" and no comma: 1a) Learning chess is easy. It has to be if I managed to do it. If the speaker were slightly less certain, then (3) would work. But it would be more natural with "anyway" inserted parenthetically before the "because"-clause: 3a) Learning chess is easy. It should be, anyway, because I managed to do it. I suppose (2) and (4) could...Read More...