All Forum Topics

Thanks so much for the excellent explanation, Mr David. I've attached screenshots of the question and answer pages from the text.Read More...

Thank you, David. Exactly what I guessed. I needed your confirmation. AppleRead More...

Thanks, Gustavo.Read More...

Thanks a lot, David and Gustavo.Read More...

Hi David, Thank you very much for your correction and answer.Read More...

Hello, Navi, I agree with you. In that context, (1), (2), and (3) are correct and are saying the same thing, but (4) is incorrect in that context because it is saying something else. In (1), (2), and (3), the tyrant's being overthrown is presented as a necessary condition of the interlocutors' being free. Sentence (4) does not refer to a necessary condition. It states that something should happen for a certain reason.Read More...

OK. Your reply showed I had guessed correctly. Thank you, David. AppleRead More...

Hello, 4n4, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. (1) is fine as long as the purpose of the review is to check the web page after introducing the changes. Otherwise, you should say: 1b. Changes were made in the web page. Please review them . I would revise (2) as follows: 2b. Please review the changes made/introduced .Read More...

Hello, Navi, Yes, all four of those sentences are grammatical, but I think (2) and (4) would sound better with some slight adjustments: (2a) He boxes like a fifties-era boxer. (2b) He boxes like a boxer out of the fifties. (4a) He boxes like a great fifties-era boxer. (4b) He boxes like a great boxer out of the fifties.Read More...

I'm glad I asked you to write them as separate sentences, bear_bear, because you are making precisely the error that I thought you might be making. But I thought you might know better, since you have been a learner for many years. Sentences (2) and (4) are ungrammatical. Whenever a modal auxiliary verb ( will, would, can, could, shall, should may, might ) is part of the verb phrase, the following verb ( play, score , etc.) must be in base form: " will play ," " will score ." This rule is not...Read More...

First of all, a tag question must relate to a certain clause. Secondly, sentences with tag questions usually have only one clause. But in certain cases a tag question will relate to a "that"-clause following "I think" or "I believe": "I believe it's raining outside, isn't it?" Apart from such sentences, it is generally safe to assume that a tag question should relate to the root clause. All of the sentences you have presented have multiple clauses. In each case, you have tested tag questions...Read More...

Thanks a lot, Gustavo.Read More...

Hi, David, Thank you so much! Your comment is helpful!Read More...

According to AS Hornby, who first compiled the famouse Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary , it is wrong to say “ I am going to temple” . He says that we must use THE before mosque, synagogue and temple whether we are going there for prayers or not. We should say “I am going to the temple to pray” or “I am going to the temple to whitewash it” . Likewise, we should not omit THE before cathedral unlike CHURCH. It is before CHURCH that we omit “the” if we are going there for prayers.Read More...

Hi, Joshua, The verb "be" establishes equivalence when what follows is a noun or a noun phrase: - Joshua is a GE member (Joshua = GE member) "two slides a page" does not express what the slide handout is but what it contains or consists of . That is why "have" is more appropriate.Read More...

Thank you, David and Gustavo, for the interesting discussion. Since I'm more used to American English than British English, it was a surprise to me that" the" is often omitted before the name of musical instruments. AppleRead More...

Gustavo, I have always used refer that way; however, the abundant abuse of the expression (with to skipped over) by people around me made me seek expert opinion, which now having come from you has put my doubts to eternal rest. Thanks a lot.Read More...

Thanks a lot.Read More...

Thanks.Read More...

Hello, Moon, I'm afraid that "emotional" and "abusive" are never synonymous. Have you looked the words up in a dictionary? The sentence doesn't work at all with "abusive" and is only marginally acceptable with "emotional." You might consider using one of these sentences instead: You should recollect a past event in which you were highly emotional. You should recollect a past event in which you felt very abused.Read More...

I agree with David. This is my suggestion to improve the sentences: - The chores should not be intended as a means to get an allowance.Read More...

Hello, Markus, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange! "Coming" is spelled with only one "m." I recommend the following question for that context: Where are you arriving from?Read More...

Hi, Catchan, Your initial assumption was natural. You assumed that the antecedent of "who" (i.e., what "who" refers to) was the noun phrase "truck driver" rather than "Irish American son." Grammatically, either one can function as the antecedent. The easiest way to parse it is to see the relative clause ("who had enlisted . . .") as modifying the entire noun phrase "the son of a New Jersey truck driver," the head of which is "son," not "truck driver." "Truck driver" is part of the "of"-phrase.Read More...