Hi, Mohamed Emara, 'Different' can be followed by the prepositions 'from', 'to' and 'than'. There could be a problem with your example because of the usage of 'than'. Your example can be read like this: - American English is more different (from, to, than) British English than Canadian English. Yes, it can. I think you know the phrase "as different as chalk and cheese". Also, See 'more different from' on this link: https://www.merriam-webster.co...om-or-different-than Finally, you can find...Read More...

Hi, Treasure, ' A ' is a possessive pronoun . ' B ' is a possessive adjective . The question asks about the possessive pronoun .Read More...

Hi, Jiho, "Unconscious" does not fit in with the context of doing something voluntarily, in this case, with not wanting to get home in a certain condition. Also, "unconscious" does not work with "extremely." You can be either conscious or unconscious, not extremely conscious or unconscious.Read More...

Thank you, Gustavo for being so kind to me for having been answered my question.Read More...

Thank you. I have another question. What about ' to the extent that'? Is it possible there instead of 'such that'?Read More...

I am not giving you the answers. I am just sharing some thoughts. A moderator or another member will soon give us the answers. 1. Some (many?) American speakers would have no problem with "If I was you, I would not accept that job." a. But some people still use the so-called subjunctive "were." The subjunctive refers to something that is not true. I am not you, but if I were you, I ... 2, I think that your second sentence should not use "were." a. Maybe it would be better to say something...Read More...

Hello, slimicee, and welome to the Grammar Exchange. Neither of your sentences is complete. Each is a sentence fragment. That said, "are" is correct, and "is" is not, since "you" is the antecedent of "who." We say "You are . . .," not " You is . . ."Read More...

Thank you, David. I appreciate your time, patient and effort 🙏Read More...

A paraphrase does not duplicate long strings of words from the text being paraphrased. (When we duplicate long strings of words, we are quoting, not paraphrasing, and quotation marks are required.) Summaries are for longer texts, but they are essentially paraphrases that leave out minor details.Read More...

I agree with Gustavo that there is nothing ungrammatical about what you have written here. However, the sentence jerks the reader around a bit. You might consider streamlining your sentence like this. You'd have to scrifice an em dash. He refers, as well, to two 2021 remarks that STRATCOM head Admiral Charles Richard made—one from a piece in Proceedings and the other from a press briefing.Read More...

Hi, Lika, I would go with neither of them. The present perfect sounds the correct choice, not the future perfect. To use 'will hear', you will need a very special context.Read More...

Thank you.Read More...

Hello, Navi—Both (1) and (2) are ungrammatical. You have violated "island constraints" (generative-grammar jargon) by trying to extract the subject of the embedded question and put it at the front of the sentence. To clean up the mess, put the subject of the embedded question back in its original position: (3) We did not know how the man who had entered the party was now dancing with Jane.Read More...

Hi, Treasure, Gustavo has given a very good answer to this question here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf.../do-or-make-revisionRead More...

Hi, Tony, No, it is not. You need to use subject pronouns here. 'Me' and 'him' are object pronouns.Read More...

Sincerely appreciate your additional clarification, David, which has finally solved out all my questions related to this thread. My last one has been issued, since I've seen a British who said ' little in the way of' in a set is "quantifier".Read More...

Either way is OK.Read More...

Hello, Navi—I think f6pafd has an interesting perspective on the two sentences. My first instinct was to agree with you that the sentences aren't correct. However, considering the obviously correctness of the cleft sentence 1a) It was not only by Eliot that Fielding was considered a great writer. I realized that the problem with (1) is simply that you have presented it as a stand-alone sentece. In a live context, it would be followed by another sentence that would render it perfectly...Read More...

Hi, Poet 20, Neither of them works. The usage of 'a' before 'few' is ungrammatical. Do you mean 'in the last few months' VS 'during the last few months'? Both of them can be used with the present perfect when there is a suitable context.Read More...

Hi, Andrew, In my opinion, the first "it" needs to refer to the subject in the main clause because it appears within a coordinate clause (introduced by "but") and the second "it" needs to be identified with the same referent: For the second part of the sentence to refer to the second doctrine, there should be a relative clause or another deictic: The Clinton Doctrine was “more expansive than Bush’s NSS”, which was ... / but the latter was ... I don't see any problem with that: The Clinton...Read More...

Hi, Azz, I agree with you. I think adding the adjective 'deliberate' would make this meaning clearer. Not necessarily. This needs further context. For example, the addressee might have mentioned that he did make a deliberate mistake to lose the game. The speaker would automatically ask him, 'What do you mean?' or 'What mistake did you make to lose the game?'Read More...

Hi, Kimi, The main difference, I see, is that dictionaries relate 'envision/envisage' to something bright or a desirable possibility in the future. See Cambridge and Collins Dictionaries here: https://dictionary.cambridge.o...ary/english/envision https://www.collinsdictionary....ary/english/envisionRead More...

Hi, Andrew, "Set out to develop" does form a verb unit and it will be hard, if not impossible, to differentiate which verb certain adverbials attach to. Though a bit wordy, the only solution I can think of consists of using a deverbal noun to separate both verbs: Health Canada set out a new goal: the development, based on scientists' input and free from industry influence, of a novel evidence-based food guide.Read More...

Hi, Jiho, "That" is grammatical and required there, because it is the head of the noun phrase " that which is measured [and reported]." You can imagine "that" as being equivalent to "the thing" or "the one." "That which" can have an indefinite meaning, being equivalent to "what" (= the thing), or refer to one in a group.Read More...

Hi, Ahmed_btm, thanks for your opinion.Read More...

Thanks. So the comma is important, right? Without the comma, does "with" attach to "medicine"? Also, would you say that a ", with" construction like this is "dangling" (or something?) in the sense that it attaches to nothing even if the meaning is clear?Read More...

Well, what would " whole olive oil " mean? I don't think the perverse interpretation you have envisioned can sensibly be forced upon the sentence.Read More...

Thanks! I really appreciate it!Read More...

Hi, Omar Ahmed, I see that both 'a' and 'c' are correct answers. 'B' can't be the right answer here. 'More' is in the comparative form and the same thing applies to 'worse'. They can't be used together. Let the exam maker see the following link: https://www.britannica.com/dic...atives-grammar-usageRead More...

Yes, Azz, I think that one could force such an interpretation. Compare: Hopefully, they sat in prayer.Read More...

Hello again, Tony—As f6pafd says, it should never be used, because it is ungrammatical. The reason it is ungrammatical is that "is formed" is either a passive construction or a linking-verb-plus-adjective construction. If it is a passive construction, it cannot be followed by the direct object, since the direct object will have been promoted to subject. If it is a linking-verb-plus-adjective construction, then a preposition is needed after the adjective.Read More...

Hi, Robby Zhu and f6pafd, Although I don't find any information about the usage of 'important to + v.ing' in my grammar books, I trust at least two people on the following site: https://forum.english.best/t/i...-do-something/5490/4 IMHO, when 'it' is the subject, it is better to avoid using 'important to + v.ing' whether 'it' is specified or not. From 'A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language', page 1226: (vii) It is important to be accurate. "For types (v-vii), on the other hand, the...Read More...

I second Ahmed's answer. An example with "too" could be: It has snowed for too many days . Please look specifically at our guideline regarding titles.Read More...

I agree with Ahmed's answer. Conditional meaning is implied here, and there are external/institutional constraints involved. If you wish to visit someone in the hospital, you have to go between 2 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon.Read More...

My friend mentioned this information: Many fermented foods will have a little bit of ethanol in there from the fermentation process itself, although its usually only present in very small amounts. Although I'm not familiar enough with food labelling laws to know if that's labelled as added or not (I don't think so though, I've never seen an added alcohol label on fermented foods). Salt is present in small amounts in any type of plant or animal cell, but the vast majority of salt in food is...Read More...

Hi, Andrew, I agree that "mostly" is ambiguous, as it can refer to "unprocessed" or to "eating unprocessed foods." Yes, that seems fine to me.Read More...

Hi, Andrew—You might find it therapeutic, cumbersome though it is, to drive a knife between the two phrases with "one the one hand"/"on the other": how food affects mood, on the one hand, and brain function, on the otherRead More...

Hi, Andrew, It all depends on what you want to say. With other words, it might be clearer, for example: - There is basically consensus when it comes to those three pillars. (Here, consensus is not limited. What is limited is how many people reach it.) - There is basic consensus when it comes to those three pillars. (Here, "basic" restricts the extent of consensus.)Read More...

Hi, Azz, It could refer to either the agent or the the subject. That's why context is everything here. From 'A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language', page 576: "Passive sentences with personal subject and agent leave the adverbial equivocal ." - John was willingly sent to friends for the summer (by his mother). (Either 'John was willing' or 'his mother was willing'.)Read More...

Hi, Azz—I agree with Ahmed that all four sentences are grammatically correct. In actual contexts, one or more of them would be more natural than the others.Read More...

I agree with both f6pafd and Gustavo that it is important to use "the" if the meaning with "the," which they have described well, is intended. Gustavo has also nicely described the meaning without "the," which takes a special context: Normally, in the winter, I hate cold weather. But it's really strange. I like cold weather this winter.Read More...

Thank you, Gustavo.Read More...

Hi, Shahd, I think that, if it is a reported speech exercise, you are expected to choose "was going to promote": The manager said: "The company is going to promote brilliant workers next month." (I feel that "brilliant workers" might require some determiner.) The manager declared that the company was going to promote brilliant workers the next month. You could use "is promoting" if the declaration was made recently and the promotion has not taken place yet. However, in this case you'd use...Read More...