November 2022

Hello, Martin S., and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. You could have started a new thread, because your question is not closely related to the previous posts. Anyway, and without evaluating other aspects of your text, the answer is negative — you cannot start a sentence with relative "which." You should try with a noun phrase that refers to the antecedent in question, such as: This institution in turn established the Department of Microbiology ...Read More...

Hello Gustavo, Sorry for the belated reply, as I've been trying to find suitable examples for this topic. Here's a sentence from CNN that may be of interest: The study said that human neurology is particularly attuned to interpreting shifting light and shadow as movement and identifying visually familiar forms in such varying light conditions. The flames and placement of a series of plaquettes would have made the engraved animals “pop to life” as if animated.Read More...

Thanks Parsel. Any takes from other members?Read More...

If you changed "such that" to "to the extent that," the meaning would change. The sentence is not talking about doing something to ever such an extent.Read More...

There is no indication as to the likelihood of her having another heart failure episode. The idea is: She is very young, and being so young it is surprising that she has already experienced heart failure.Read More...

Thank you ahmed_btm!Read More...

Hi, Jiho, "Unconscious" does not fit in with the context of doing something voluntarily, in this case, with not wanting to get home in a certain condition. Also, "unconscious" does not work with "extremely." You can be either conscious or unconscious, not extremely conscious or unconscious.Read More...

Thank you.Read More...

Thank you, David. I appreciate your time, patient and effort 🙏Read More...

Hello, slimicee, and welome to the Grammar Exchange. Neither of your sentences is complete. Each is a sentence fragment. That said, "are" is correct, and "is" is not, since "you" is the antecedent of "who." We say "You are . . .," not " You is . . ."Read More...

Sincerely appreciate your additional clarification, David, which has finally solved out all my questions related to this thread. My last one has been issued, since I've seen a British who said ' little in the way of' in a set is "quantifier".Read More...

A paraphrase does not duplicate long strings of words from the text being paraphrased. (When we duplicate long strings of words, we are quoting, not paraphrasing, and quotation marks are required.) Summaries are for longer texts, but they are essentially paraphrases that leave out minor details.Read More...

Hello, Navi—Both (1) and (2) are ungrammatical. You have violated "island constraints" (generative-grammar jargon) by trying to extract the subject of the embedded question and put it at the front of the sentence. To clean up the mess, put the subject of the embedded question back in its original position: (3) We did not know how the man who had entered the party was now dancing with Jane.Read More...

I agree with Gustavo that there is nothing ungrammatical about what you have written here. However, the sentence jerks the reader around a bit. You might consider streamlining your sentence like this. You'd have to scrifice an em dash. He refers, as well, to two 2021 remarks that STRATCOM head Admiral Charles Richard made—one from a piece in Proceedings and the other from a press briefing.Read More...

Hello, Navi—I think f6pafd has an interesting perspective on the two sentences. My first instinct was to agree with you that the sentences aren't correct. However, considering the obviously correctness of the cleft sentence 1a) It was not only by Eliot that Fielding was considered a great writer. I realized that the problem with (1) is simply that you have presented it as a stand-alone sentece. In a live context, it would be followed by another sentence that would render it perfectly...Read More...

Hi, Lika, I would go with neither of them. The present perfect sounds the correct choice, not the future perfect. To use 'will hear', you will need a very special context.Read More...

Hi, Andrew, In my opinion, the first "it" needs to refer to the subject in the main clause because it appears within a coordinate clause (introduced by "but") and the second "it" needs to be identified with the same referent: For the second part of the sentence to refer to the second doctrine, there should be a relative clause or another deictic: The Clinton Doctrine was “more expansive than Bush’s NSS”, which was ... / but the latter was ... I don't see any problem with that: The Clinton...Read More...

Hi, Andrew, "Set out to develop" does form a verb unit and it will be hard, if not impossible, to differentiate which verb certain adverbials attach to. Though a bit wordy, the only solution I can think of consists of using a deverbal noun to separate both verbs: Health Canada set out a new goal: the development, based on scientists' input and free from industry influence, of a novel evidence-based food guide.Read More...

Hi, Treasure, Gustavo has given a very good answer to this question here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf.../do-or-make-revisionRead More...

Hi, Tony, No, it is not. You need to use subject pronouns here. 'Me' and 'him' are object pronouns.Read More...

Hi, Azz, I agree with you. I think adding the adjective 'deliberate' would make this meaning clearer. Not necessarily. This needs further context. For example, the addressee might have mentioned that he did make a deliberate mistake to lose the game. The speaker would automatically ask him, 'What do you mean?' or 'What mistake did you make to lose the game?'Read More...

Either way is OK.Read More...

Hi, Poet 20, Neither of them works. The usage of 'a' before 'few' is ungrammatical. Do you mean 'in the last few months' VS 'during the last few months'? Both of them can be used with the present perfect when there is a suitable context.Read More...