November 2020

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...

That's right, Ahmed. (A) is right and (B) is wrong. Here's how to make (B) correct: Do you know what Ali's plan for the weekend is ?Read More...

Absolutely not, Ahmed. The sentence is both ungrammatical and ludicrous. You need to change "wearing" to "putting": "I'm just putting on my coat." " Put on (something)" is a phrasal verb. You can even say: "I'm just putting my coat on."Read More...

Thank you, Ahmed. Olga, "Are all my answers to my grammar-homework questions correct?" is not a question about the grammar of English. If you ask a question about English grammar, we will be happy to discuss it with you.Read More...

Hi, Toka, Please, notice that you shouldn't make your whole question the title of the thread. I see that 'b' is the best one here. It means that she was waiting for me and immediately on my arrival, she cooked the meal. Using the past simple with the two actions means that there was no time span between them.Read More...

I don't know if this answers your question, which is not very clear to me, but complex sentences contain one or more subordinate clauses, and relative clauses are one type of subordinate clauses. Therefore, a sentence containing a relative clause is, by definition, a complex sentence.Read More...

Sorry about that.Read More...

Thanks a lot for your answer and for your kind remarks .Read More...

Hi, Gustavo, I completely agree with you. I should have added, from the very beginning, that the usage of 'more clear' is nonstandard here. Quirk in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, page 406, says: 1. ?Speak clear. 2. Speak clearer. [' more clearly '] 3. This newsreader speaks clearest of all. ['most clearly'] Whereas clear in [l] is nonstandard for clearly, [2] and [3] are both acceptable standard English variants of more clearly and most clearly, respectively.Read More...

I prefer the second one, Tony. It sounds more natural. "as to" will generally be used when the relationship between the noun and the clause that follows is not so direct and, as a result, a stronger connection needs to be established: - There are different points of view as to why I should accompany you.Read More...

Tony, David means you need to analyze how lawyers and accountants write and try to imitate their style.Read More...

No, Whisperdrone, it shouldn't. For examples, look at any book or article.Read More...

Re: "In" vs "of"Read More...

The sentence is correct as written, Whisperdrone. If you separated the quotation and the clause of attribution into two sentences, the clause of attribution would have a different meaning. The quotation would no longer be the complement of the verb "thought." "Thought" would be intransitive, and "One of the men in the group thought" would mean that one of the men engaged periodically in the activity of thinking. You could also simply say: One of the men in the group wished he were more like...Read More...

Thank you so much, I appreciate thatRead More...

Hello, WHISPERDRONE, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Both ways are acceptable.Read More...

Hello, Leeen A., and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. The first sentence is grammatical in the right type of context. For example: I don't know what I would do if I couldn't go sailing while there. I hope I could (at least) go to the beach.Read More...

Hello, WinD and Gustavo—This is a very interesting topic. I think it is probably in the Top 10 of the most challenging questions ever asked on the Grammar Exchange. I do not have a definitive answer to offer here but only my perspective. For me, the correctness judgements should be just the reverse. The sentence with "furnishing" is correct, and the sentence with "raise" is incorrect. As Gustavo goes on to say, Fowler finds "furnishing" unidiomatic but defensible, and "raise" idiomatic but...Read More...

Hello, mark888, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Where have you taken this sentence from? Restrictive "that" should be replaced with non-restrictive "which" (preceded by a comma), and, being nouns, "insects" and "animals" should be in the plural (by the way, insects are animals). This is a case of full inversion, with "scattered among the leaves" being a subject complement in front position and with the verb "crawl" preceding the subject "creatures ..."Read More...

I hadn't thought of a specific context in which "whether" could fit in. Great context! Thanks, @Gustavo, Co-Moderator and @David, Moderator !Read More...

No, CROSSCHAOS, that is incorrect. You can say: - Which of these foods wouldn't you eat for breakfast? or, as you proposed: - Which of these foods would you not eat for breakfast?Read More...

Yes, Ceedhanna, that would be a possible answer too.Read More...

Hi, Ilko, Could you tell please us in what context you found this sentence? One possible context I can think of is an architect showing the layout of a future urban development and explaining where the different buildings would be located.Read More...