November 2020

Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.Read More...

1) I've seen that you sent me some documents. = I have just seen that you sent me documents in the past. 2) I saw that you have sent me some documents. (Technically wrong. But I think some people may say it.) I saw (at a certain point in the past) that you have sent me (more than once) documents. 3) I saw that you had sent me some documents. = 2 4) I've seen that you have sent me some documents. = I've just seen that you've just sent me documents (very recent actions) or I've seen several...Read More...

Tony, "further" and "furthermore" can be synonyms. In LDOCE , under "further" we can read: 5 IN ADDITION [ sentence adverb ] formal used to introduce something additional that you want to talk about SYN furthermore I'd use "opening balance" instead of "beginning balance." Also, I don't know what "they" refers to in the last sentence.Read More...

I did as you advised. Thank you very much David!Read More...

Thank you, David.Read More...

The relative clause (trust) f or which you were the auditor who audited this trust is definitely redundant. You should say: 1a. I thought I'd just email you regarding my queries in respect of the XYZ Trust for which you were the auditor. or 1b. I thought I'd just email you regarding my queries in respect of the XYZ Trust (that/which) you audited. Actually, although (1a) sounds fine to me, the main clause that the relative derives from could also be: You were the auditor of the XYZ Trust , in...Read More...

Hello, Tony—It is not wrong to use the article from a grammatical standpoint. Indeed, it is quite natural and correct from a grammatical standpoint to use the article there. However, as Gustavo observes, articles are often omitted in such lists; so this is really a stylistic matter. You should examine already published reports of the type you are writing and see whether articles are used at the beginning of such lines. Alternatively, you could ask the people for whom you are writing (the...Read More...

Thank you, David, as well. I agree, that the sentence feels unnatural, but I found it in a text and wanted to know, whether I understood it correctly or not. "It makes me an irritating person" is much clearer.Read More...

Thank you very much, both of you. That was very helpful. @ahmed_btm @David, ModeratorRead More...

Thank you again for such a clear answer. This forum is so helpful and always respectful.Read More...

I am sorry. Do you really mean E or did you mean C was correct?Read More...

Dear David, Thank you so much for your kind reply. The question has been bugging me for hours. Hope you have a wonderful day!Read More...

Hello, Navi—In that context, "the devil, he may take you" seems to me to be a hybrid of the set phrases "the devil may care" and "the devil take you" (subjunctive). The use of "or" in that sentence, the first part of which is an imperative, has a conditional meaning. I'd paraphrase it as follows: Either stand and deliver or go to hell.Read More...

Thank you for your responses!Read More...

Hi, Mo7amed—Are you trying to ask whether you should use "all" or "both" in the second sentence? If so, only "both" works. We use "all" with more than two.Read More...

Hi, Izzathanna, and welcome to the G.E, Yes, he is quite right. Grammatically speaking, the verb tense does not need to change if the information being reported is still true.Read More...

Yes, adding "it" solves the problem. Using "which" or "that" is unnecessary.Read More...

Limit the Google search to books and you won't find a single example. Most of the examples on Google are either grammatically irrelevant, because the words in the string belong to separate sentences, or from illiterate pornography.Read More...

I mean, where in the text the account was first mentioned. Being deictic determiners or pronouns, "this" and "that" will be respectively used depending on how close or how far in the text the antecedent can be found. On rereading your original post, I realize you refer to the account you just mentioned , so you should use "this."Read More...

Hello, JP, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Sentence (II) is the correct sentence. The question relates to the declarative sentence " [X] hours are in a day," in which you can see that the verb is needed.Read More...

Gustavo, really appreciate your kind explanations, especially since it was made on Sunday. Best RGDS,Read More...

Hi, Cristi, Please note that "expense" is a singular noun, so "were" should be changed to "was." The verb "relate" can be intransitive or transitive. If intransitive, you can use (2): 2. The expense claimed related to your income-producing purpose and therefore it was/was therefore tax deductible. (Are you sure you want to use "income producing purpose" —which I'd probably hyphenate— instead of the much more common "source of income"?) If transitive, you have to use the passive voice: 1a.Read More...

They are possible in other contexts. I would not use it in the context you have provided. I would instead use the sentence that I would told you I would use.Read More...

Hello, Ahmed—Sentence (1a) means that, right now, he is hiring a mechanic to repair the car. Sentence (1b) means that a mechanic whom he has already hired to repair the car is repairing the car for him right now. Sentence (2a) means that he spend his day in the context of having hired a mechanic to repair the car. Sentence (2b) means that there was a period of time yesterday during which he had already hired a mechanic to repair the car and the mechanic was doing so.Read More...

Hello, Navi—Among the phrasal modals (semi-modals, quasi-auxiliaries, whatever term you like), "BE going to" does not work with negation in the middle, between "going" and "to." "Have to" is another one that doesn't work like that: It's the weekend. * I have not to go to bed early tonight. But "used to" and "BE supposed to" do work: "People are supposed not to litter." "My son used not to clean his room." In your example set, (2) does not work, but (1) and (3) do. I find (1) much more...Read More...