Hello, Tip, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. "many" can be preceded by "the," but "plenty of" can't. - Due to the many benefits ... - Due to the numerous benefits ... but NOT: - Due to the plenty of benefits ...Read More...

I agree, however, I think that the first conditional would work better here if we say: If I stay up late tonight , I will feel tired tomorrow .Read More...

I agree with Gustavo's answer. It might help to vary the terms of the example: It is the girl on the right's dog. That sentence means that the dog is the dog belonging to the girl on the right. It is [the girl on the right]'s dog. We're seeing a phrasal possessive. The apostrophe + "s" (possessive morpheme) attaches to the entire noun phrase "the girl on the right," headed by "girl." P.S. to Abo Hamza: I changed the thread title, originally "Is this sentence correct?"Read More...

I understand "by" as an awkward substitute for "of" here, not "from": - The responsibility that this knowledge demands of the men who have it. In other words, knowledge of the existence of aliens demands responsibility of the men who have this knowledge; it demands that they be responsible with it.Read More...

Hi, Ahmed, "of" is used to introduce the material : - That window is made of wood . "from" (also "out of") can be used to indicate the origin of something: - That window was made from an old door .Read More...

Thank you. I was confused as there was only one Japanese currency, the yen. I did not understand why we could use “a” in some instances.Read More...

Hello, happyday, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I stand with Gustavo. It is impossible for us to tell without further context (including more of the sentence, if not the whole thing) what is bothering you. On the contrary, it is possible to imagine the sentence fragment you have posted as a grammatically correct component of a grammatically correct sentence.Read More...

Hi, Abo Hamza, I agree with Ahmed_btm's answer. However, I have three comments to make: two about the thread you have started here and one about your question. The title "choose the correct answer :" is not an appropriate title for a discussion thread at the Grammar Exchange. A thread's title should relate to its content. The body of your opening post, "Could you answer this question, please?," is not appropriate either. Ask your question in the opening post, not in an attachment. The...Read More...

Hello, Zizi, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I agree with Ahmed_btm's answer: the singular verb is needed in each case. Grammatically, "combined with" does not function like "and." Of course, if you replaced "combined with" with "and," you would need plural verbs: 3. Effortless website navigation and shorter hold times empower your users and increase engagement across all your digital platforms. As Ahmed pointed out, however, the combined with phrase modifies "website navigation," as...Read More...

Both are OK. 'Rent a car' is American English. 'Hire a car' is British English. See: https://dictionary.cambridge.o...tionary/english/hire http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldserv...nit/learnitv72.shtmlRead More...

Indeed it is, or at least a character from the sequel to Alice in Wonderland, titled Through the Looking-Glass . Native-speaking children tend to learn the nursery rhyme on its own around the time we learn to talk. That's why it took a special intellectual effort for me to realize that someone might not understand that "fall" can be a noun as well as a verb. Humpty Dumpty's origin is fascinating (see here ).Read More...

Thank you for the clear answer.Read More...

Thank you for such a detailed answer!Read More...

Thanks always..Read More...

Thank you for the answer. It's clear now.Read More...

Hello, Onethrusix, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Phrases like "1920s New York" and "1980s Russia" are grammatically acceptable. In such phrases, the decade functions as an adjectival modifier, not an adjective. "1920s New York" = "the New York of the 1920s" or "New York in the 1920s." Examples also abound with "music"; e.g., "eighties music" = music of the 1980s.Read More...

Yes, that's right. You were misled.Read More...

I agree with you, Gustavo, that the original sentence is flawed, and I like your fix. Nevertheless, the fix that comes naturally to me here is slightly different: Almost twice as many voters identify themselves as independents as those who identify themselves as members of either the Democratic or Republican parties/party. The basic structure of that sentence is this: Almost twice as many Xs do Y as those [Xs] who do Z. And the meaning of that structure is different from the one Gustavo...Read More...

You can use "was" there, Robby zhu, but not "were." "Were" would be ungrammatical: (1a) I wish I knew where my key was now. (1b) * I wish I knew where my key were now . The past subjunctive is used in the clause complementing "wish," NOT in the clause contained by the clause complementing "wish." (P.S. I agree with the answers that Ahmed_btm has given to Ahmed.A.A.'s questions above.)Read More...

Hello, ForestDreams, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. The following sentences are not incorrect: (1b) "What a night," Shelia said before disappearing into the crowd. (2b) "That was delicious," Shelia said with a smile. However, I prefer the original versions, with those commas restored: (1a) "What a night," Shelia said, before disappearing into the crowd. (2a) "That was delicious," Shelia said, with a smile. I think the "before"- and "with"-phrases are most naturally understood as...Read More...

Thank you.Read More...

Hi, Muh1994, You can chose either "has been built" or "was built." The meaning will be that because the bridge has been/ was built, it will help the traffic flow. Since the bridge has been built, it will help the traffic flow. Since the bridge was built, it will help the traffic flow. If you would like "since" to have a meaning related to time (a completely different meaning), the sentence would need to be changed to something like this: Since the bridge has been built, it has helped the...Read More...

Hello, Emad, Both answers work in the first sentence: (1) It rained for three days. (2) It was raining for three days. The more normal, matter-of-fact sentence is (1). Sentence (2) has the same basic meaning, but the past progressive there conveys that the speaker found the period to be rather long and is suggestive of slight irritation about the weather. What makes the sentence pair of the example strange is the second sentence, which doesn't work in the context of the first, no matter...Read More...

I think the person who wrote that was referring to themselves. Colloquially, you could do without the subject and say: Will never forget the roots of ... or Will always remember the roots of ...Read More...

That's partly right. The problem is that you seem to understand "be supposed to" as a passive construction, and it is not naturally understood that way in examples like these. If I say, "It was supposed to be sunny today," I am not reporting on someone's past supposition: " John supposed it to be sunny today "; " It was supposed by John to be sunny today ." No, "It was supposed to be sunny today" just means "It should be sunny today." The sentence is neutral about whether it really is sunny...Read More...

Hi, Jiho -- The future simple ("will open") or the future progressive ("will be opening") can be used in (1) and (2) with basically no difference in meaning, and the "will" can be backshifted to "would" in each case: (1a) Today, Wichner Industries announced that it will open an office in Kuala Lumpur to coordinate its overseas operations. (1b) Today, Wichner Industries announced that it would open an office in Kuala Lumpur to coordinate its overseas operations. (1c) Today, Wichner Industries...Read More...

OK. And I will take some time to digest.Read More...

Hi, Subhajit123, "used to live" is wrong in (2) because it does not work with definite adverbials like "for five years." In the other cases, both the past simple and the "used to" form work. Note: You should day "He won the (or a ) Nobel prize in 1913."Read More...

I appreciate your response. It makes sense to me now. Thank you so muchRead More...

Hi, Youri, What do you mean by "apposite"? "Apposition"? Please clarify with an example for the question to be understandable.Read More...

No, Youri. You should say: - The British (= British people -> plural) are different from other members of the European community.Read More...

Hi, Youri, It is correct when what follows "to" is equivalent to a noun. I invite you and other GE members who might be interested to read an article I wrote about this topic here (click on Descargar -- meaning "Download" in Spanish -- on the first line of the table where it says: AEXALEVI Forum Issue XXXI-DIC-2019, and go to page 9).Read More...

Youri, have you checked the dictionary by any chance?Read More...

Hi, Youri, Where have you taken this sentence from? It doesn't sound too idiomatic.Read More...

Hi, Youri, Your questions usually lack examples and, when there is an example, you don't mention the source or the example is incomplete, as is the case here. What do you mean by "what is the rule"? If you don't provide more context, it will be hard for us to help you and for you to learn.Read More...

Examples? Are you sure about "neither than"?Read More...

Yes, it is correct. "there" is a grammatical subject. The real subject is "many reasons for the enmity existing between the two neighboring countries." Since the real subject is too long: - Many reasons for the enmity existing between the two neighboring countries remain . we can use the anticipatory subject "there" or we can split the subject: - Many reasons remain for the enmity existing between the two neighboring countries. We use "remain" (not "remains") because the subject is plural...Read More...

Run-on sentences can't be found in formal exams.Read More...

Hello, Emad, "Have risen" (the present perfect) is the correct choice, since "the last few years" refers to a period of time leading up to the present. However, it would be good (more idiomatic) to replace "during" with "over": Prices in the shops have risen over the last few years. If the period of time were not a period of time leading up to the present, but a period wholly in the past, then it would be OK to use "during," and you could use either the simple past or the past perfect:...Read More...

Hello, Navi, Sentence (2) could correspond to (a), but it could also correspond to (c): c) She came every day, and I cleaned the windows every day, but I cleaned the windows only during the period of every day which coincided with her being here. I agree. And your meaning (b) is logically parallel to my meaning (c) above.Read More...

Well, that comma between "Eve" and "2019" makes a big difference.Read More...

Thanks for our help.Read More...