All Forum Topics

Hi Hassan, the answer is "is". To date you have never climbed a dangerous mountain. The fact remains true. Hence, "was", which relates to the past, cannot be used in your sentence.Read More...

We're happy to see you again, Joshua, and hope that you stick around. I think that you will find yourself getting used to the new system in no time. Just keep asking questions. Your English will thank you for it.Read More...

Thank you very much, Gustavo and David, The other thread was not in my files. I just added it. I had forgotten about it actually, or else I wouldn't have asked this question. There is nothing to unveil. The sentences sound bad and are bad! My apologies! Respectfully, NaviRead More...

Hi, Ruifeng, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "pile of Ns" with plural conjugation. "Group of Ns," however, can take either singular or plural conjugation. The same question goes FOR "group," you could have said.Read More...

Hi, Gustavo, It is now clear to me why the article writer used the past perfect in the relevant sentence instead of the present perfect. Thank you again for you help.Read More...

Hi David, First of all, thank you for being patient and making an effort to keep all my questions solved. You have been very helpful! And as for your questions above: Neither. I just hope that I can learn more correct and natural English rather than poor English.Read More...

Hello, Coco, Sentence (2) is fine, but you are right that there is something wrong about (1). What is wrong is that there is a conflict in the tenses. "Goes" (present tense) should be "went" (past tense). You can say: Hardly a day went by that I didn't think about her. Hardly a day goes by that I don't think about her.Read More...

I appreciate it.Read More...

Marvellous! Thanks, David.Read More...

Thank you both very much, The problem seems to be sentence '3'. At first, I really thought it could work, although I knew that I was sort of pushing things! The more I think about it, the more I have doubts. Gustavo doesn't seem to have a particular problem with it, but David does. If I understand David's reply correctly, the problem with '3' is ' her'. That word implies that the ring did really belong to her. But then we learn that it didn't. There seems to be a contradiction. I thought...Read More...

Hi, Kis: I've never used Euros. If "€" were "$," $7.99 would be pronounced "seven-ninety-nine" or "seven dollars and ninety-nine cents." If you want to know how to pronounce "€7.99" in English, you should ask an English speaker who uses Euros.Read More...

Thank you so much.Read More...

Subhajit, you say "how I should use gerunds." The point is that sometimes you don't need to use a gerund, or any kind of word in particular, if you want to sound natural. Language does not work that way, enabling the use of any category of word at all times. When the (implicit) subject of the gerund is the same as that of the main clause, it is incorrect, or in the best case extremely awkward, to use the possessive as in your second sentence above. Why should you use it? In this other case...Read More...

Hi David, Could you please explain what you meant here? Thank you very much for your answer.Read More...

David, Your "Object" example, of course, can also refer to the meat of the turkey rather than the bird itself. Hence (or is that "hens"?), the second sentence in the example could say that they "ate some fresher turkey instead". Mostly, though, I wanted to bring back a similar example that you shared with me years ago, which was: I think that you asked me at the time which of these meanings came to mind: But, of course, a turkey can't be hungry if it's stuffed. I understand that this doesn't...Read More...

David says: There is something very strangely beautiful about that sentence. He uses a double negative to speak of the omission of an omission. I agree with David completely, but I can't really say that avoiding the lack of absence of ellipsis would work nearly as well. I'm sure you know, but since it wasn't spelled out, "for good", as David uses it, means "permanently". I've never quite understood how it came to mean that, since it doesn't seem to be related to any other meaning of "good"...Read More...

Hi, Kis, Yes, they are both correct. I would find it much more natural not to use "will" in that particular context. So I prefer (a), but both are correct. There are no differences between them in that case. But take a case like this: "I hope he is there." Without context, "is" can refer to the present or the future. There is no way, however, to suppose that "will be" in the sentence "I hope he will be there" can refer to the present. Thus, "will" can remove ambiguity sometimes.Read More...

Ruifeng and David, My tendency is to refer to the flag of the United Kingdom as the British flag, and I think that most of my British friends will agree with me. It is also known as the Union Jack. Please note that this is not the same thing at all as the English flag. They are two different things. The official description of the Union Jack is as follows: The saltires of Saint George, Saint Andrew, and Saint Patrick represent England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, as all of Ireland...Read More...

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it so much. Would you please tell me more about "fused psrticiple".Read More...

Thank you, Gustavo.Read More...

Thank you, Gustavo, so much.Read More...