All Topics

Encouraging words. Thank you.Read More...

Thank you David.Read More...

Thanks a lot AhmedRead More...

Yes, and here the grammar is ambiguous as a mere technicality; so unless you have a reader who wants to point out a possible meaning that wasn't intended, there is no grammatical problem with writing "Also in loving memory of . . . ."Read More...

Hi, Freeguy, I agree with David that nothing seems to be wrong, except the missing capital. If Millersville is the town in question, some could argue that it might be more effective for purposes of cohesion to mention the name of the town first and then use the common noun to refer to it: - Sally's Sweet Shop is one of the oldest businesses in Millersville to be located on one of the main streets ( in town ). (Actually, I would eliminate "in town" for redundancy reasons.)Read More...

Hi, Tony—When asking about words or phrases in another sentence that refers to those words or phrases, you should use quotation marks around those words or phrases, or place them in italics, so that it is clear that those words or phrases are not being used in the sentence but are being referred to. Background and context can be the same thing, but they can also be different. When the context is the background, they are interchangeable. Background involves the past. When the context is...Read More...

Thank you SO much!! I had to get the report in, and luckily my intuition was correct. I love this forum, I just found out it existed.Read More...

Hi, Azz—While I agree with your analysis in principle, I do not like any of the sentences. The only one that has a chance of sounding natural is (a), but only with special emphasis on "good" and a context that works for it—e.g.: a1. Generally, when I hear an improbable story, it's a bad story. This was different. He told me a good improbable story. It is not an accident that "good" is in italics in (a1). As for (b) and (c), we can fix (b) by placing "albeit" before "improbable" and adding...Read More...

Thank you, David. I now understand the difference. AppleRead More...

Thanks XianneRead More...

Thanks AhmedRead More...

Hi, Subhajit—Normally, (2) would be "I mounted a TV on the wall," and (3) would be "They installed smoke alarms on the ceiling." Regarding (1), what are you trying to say? "I fitted a door in my house" would mean that you managed to accommodate the door in your house. Is the door gigantic?Read More...

Yes, they mean the same thing. The difference arises when a V-ing is used, for example: if you help (to) make the bed, you help somebody (to) make the bed; if you help (by) making the bed, you help somebody with the housework and the specific task you assume to do on your own is making the bed.Read More...

Hi, Habiboullah, and 'Happy Ramadan', Since there are two courses, then ' d ' is the correct answer.Read More...

Hi, Abdelrahman, and welcome to the G.E, Both could work, but without further context, ' moved ' sounds better here. 1. A: What was that noise? B: Oh, I moved some boxes in the room. (A single completed action in the past that was the cause of the noise). 2. A: What was that noise? B: Oh, I was moving some boxes in the room when (something happened).Read More...

Hi, Ahmed, ' Comment ' is the correct answer. 'Be' a comment on something = 'Be' a sign of the bad quality of something.Read More...

Hello, aliciaballerina, The comma is used to mark the absence of the verb, as in: - I use this microphone and you, the other. In: "Cone of silence lifted" I don't feel that "is" is omitted so, in my view, no comma should be used. See how the comma is also omitted in this similar construction: "Everybody ready to speak."Read More...

Hi, Ahmed, I don't think this question is related to grammar. However, I will give you a clue. C) is ungrammatical. However, if you include a proper subject before 'acquire', it will be the topic sentence. Now, if you want to start a paragraph, which one will be the topic sentence and which one will be the supporting sentence? Apparently, 'c' is more general and expresses the paragraph's overall subject. a) could be a supporting sentence which develops or explains the topic sentence. Anyway,...Read More...

Hi, Azz—Yes, the intended interpretation is grammatically possible in each sentence. However, in view of the fact that a "not both" interpretation is also possible (creating ambiguity), as well as the fact that all the sentences are awkward and could easily be rephrased, why settle for any of them? Try this: e. His play does not induce boredom and is (very) original.Read More...

Hell, Mister Mohamed, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Yes, both of those orders are possible. "A big old traditional flat" indicates that not all traditional flats are big, but the one the speaker is referring to is. "A traditional big old flat" indicates that traditional flats are characteristically big.Read More...

Then both are incorrect; (1) should read "Having opened itself . . .," and (2) should be rephrased so that the participial phrase doesn't dangle.Read More...