All Forum Topics

Thank you. I am from ThailandRead More...

Thanks for your reply David but Swan pointed out that we can use past con. Or past simple for two longer actions, we can say: John was cooking supper while I was watching TV John cooked supper while I watched tv. Still I' m confused when you say ( throughout the time ) do you mean that the action was completed at the time). Does ( throughout the time differs from ( at the time of or during the time)Read More...

I think they can both mean the speaker started to eat nothing (with this meaning, "anything" seems more usual to me), or started to be selective: the speaker started to eat only certain things, not just anything or everything. I think the same ambiguity stated above applies here.Read More...

I agree with Gustavo that the intended meaning, represented by the first (1), is possible. Of course, the other meaning, represented by the second (1), is also possible. To disambiguate in favor of the intended meaning, you could say: c. He refused to let the pandemic, or the government's response to it, prevent him from keeping his bar open.Read More...

Hi, Mooninsky—You're using "facilitate" incorrectly. Use "help" instead.Read More...

Hi, bear_bear, The correct options are: 1(b), because independent sentences are separated by periods, not commas. 2(a), because after vocatives we use commas. 3(a), for the same reason stated for 1(b). Help! is, in fact, an independent sentence. (You don't need to leave a space before exclamation marks: Call 999! ) 4(c), because vocatives are set off by commas, and "but" also needs to be preceded by a comma.Read More...

I think you meant to say: In their tax return(s), people need/are required to disclose their types/sources of income separately. " as distribution" sounds better (you don't need to repeat "trust"). Both "as" and "in" work when what follows is a more concrete item: compare as/in assets/liabilities/earnings/expenses with as compensation/distribution . - In his tax return, Donald T has declared an amount of $10K as distribution from the Trump family trust.Read More...

Hello, Cristi, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Where you wrote "operation" above, I guess it was a typo — it should be "operate." Both sentences are correct, but while the first one presupposes that "you" only needs one computer to operate, the second one may imply that "you" needs more than one computer, or that there are no computers out of which one could be assigned to the operator.Read More...

Hi, Ashraful, You need a comma after the participle phrase. Otherwise, you should eliminate "it": Talking about Rima, it reminds me she sent me a friend's request a few months ago. Talking about Rima reminds me she sent me a friend's request a few months ago.Read More...

I hope to have more to report about this variety of ellipsis in the near future, Yasukotta. I hesitate to explain to you how I think the sentence could be derived (in generative-transformational grammar) without ellipsis. Before I do that, I'd like to have the blessing of a syntactician who, for half a century, has specialized in that area. In the meantime, I'd like to share another example I've come across, in a poem by former poet laureate Richard Wilbur: " The sun shall glory in the...Read More...

Hello, Mooninsky, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I agree with Ahmed that you should NOT say "was graduated" or "am graduated." It doesn't matter whether it's American or British English; the sentence is quite bad nowadays with "was graduated" or "am graduated." Although you can say, "I have graduated from XYZ with a B.A.," such a sentence would normally be used to announce a recent graduation. On a job application, it would be more normal to use the simple past: I graduated from ABC...Read More...

Dear 'Gustavo', I completely agree with you. 'An' seems unnecessary here. Also, 'based' is the correct word to use in such a context.Read More...

Hi, Toaha, The sentence is grammatical, but the adjective "purposive" is, to the best of my knowledge, rather unusual. I think this could be more usual: - It's a great initiative, no matter what its (real) purposes are / may be.Read More...

Hello, Eliza, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. If you have a question, you have to post it and we will answer it as soon as we can.Read More...

My native ears only accept plural agreement there: "The vast majority of them have arrived." The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) confirms that "majority" is usually found with plural agreement when it functions as a quantifier, as here.Read More...

Hello, Abo—Whether you choose "don't" or "doesn't," the sentence will be ungrammatical. "Her" is the pronominal subject of the question. As subject, that pronoun must be in subjective (nominative) case: "she." The correct question is " Why doesn't she? " You can say, " She doesn't because . . . ,"not " She don't because . . . ," " Her doesn't because . . . ," " Her don't because . . . "Read More...

Hi, Toaha—If it is "again" that doesn't make sense to you, it signals that the speaker is asking the interlocutor to tell him something that he had told him before. If it is the construction "How was it that you convinced me to . . . ?" that doesn't make sense to you, that is a (clefted) rearrangement of "How did you convince me to . . . ?" Similarly, instead of saying, "You convinced me to jump out of this plane by giving me a hundred dollars ," we can say, " It was by giving me a hundred...Read More...

Thanks 😇Read More...

Hi, Azz, In Webster's Third International Dictionary (unabridged), I read under between : 1a : involving the reciprocal action of : involving as participants : jointly engaging <the job was completed between the two of them> I think your sentences: work in much the same way as the one from the dictionary: - The job was completed involving the two of them as participants. - Involving John and Harry as participants, there are two people who say ... - Involving John, Pete and Harry as...Read More...

Thanks for removing my confusion 💖💖💖Read More...

Thank you, David.Read More...

Hi, Navi, With so many postings on GE lately, this one remained forgotten on a previous page but I thought it was worth rescuing. All of these sound fine to me, but according to Fowler both like and unlike are prepositions and can only be followed by nouns (as in 2 and 4). However, in these cases there arises a lack of parallelism ( in our restaurant / their restaurant // in your case / your cousin's case ). According to prescriptivist grammar rules, your sentences could read as follows: 5)...Read More...

I had to wait for some days to get response for the above topic. But the explanation I have seen now is really helpful for me. Probably Azar Grammar Exchange is the only site where we can see this sort of detail explanation. It is the best site I have ever seen.Read More...

Ah.... I see. Thank you. AppleRead More...

You're right. As you can see, leaving out "necessarily" results in a sentence that does not reflect the truth: when we yawn, it usually means we are tired.Read More...