December 2020

Yes, you can use: - The total interest expenses of $15,000 were reflected in the bank statement s of the following account s : a. Account number #1234 b. Account number #9999 (two bank account s ⇒ two statement s ) or - The total interest expenses of $15,000 were reflected in the bank statement of each of the following account s : a. Account number #1234 b. Account number #9999 (each bank account has its statement)Read More...

Hi, Jason and Gustavo—I agree with both of you that the participial phrase is not properly attached to the main clause, and that the subject of the main clause should be one, such as "we," that is capable of functioning as the implied subject of the nonfinite participial clause. I also like Gustavo's solution of changing the "knowing"-phrase to a prepositional phrase beginning with "considering." Another option would have been to change "Knowing what we know" to the prepositional phrase "In...Read More...

Thank you David I understand better now. I'm studying to improve. Evidently, I have a lot to learn. LeonelRead More...

Hi, Tony—Your example sentence is incorrect. "Were" should be "was." The subject is "number." The number was five. "Total" does function as an adjective.Read More...

In the negative would not can be used to express persistent objection, meaning she refused to agree. The form didn't agree is equivalent to disagreed. The sentences with would express a hypothetical situation ( if the number of cars were reduced, that would mean a reduction in pollution / in a certain hypothetical situation, it would be easier to find parking spaces in urban areas ), while those with will express a more certain result in the future. Next time please number your sentences...Read More...

Hi, Ken—I agree with Gustavo that the phrase is fine. It is grammatically correct, semantically sound, and perfectly natural. It may be compared too "a phone call from Canada." "From Canada" refers to the point, or region, of origin.Read More...

Yes, Ahmed, it is correct. "Costing 10000 pounds" is a reduced relative clause. The sentence means: " The camera that costs 1000 pounds is over there. "Read More...

Hi, Ahmed, Since there is no backshift in (1), that could work for a recent past event, or for informal reporting: Tom: I burnt myself while I was cooking. X: I couldn't get what he said. What did he tell you? You: He told me he burnt himself while he was cooking. (Notice that adverbials will generally appear at the end in reported speech.) I think (4') is the best for conventional reporting, but (3') could also work: 4'- Tom told me (that) he had burnt himself while he was cooking. 3'- Tom...Read More...

Hi, Tony, The plural "expenses" does not work well before the noun "deductions." This is better: interest-related expense deductions. In my opinion, this would be a better linking mechanism: - Your tax return disclosed interest-related expense deductions of $10,000, of which / out of which $5,000 was related to interest paid to an overseas lender.Read More...

That's a very clever analysis, David. Unlike other participles above, "depend" does have an implicit subject (there has to be something that depends on something else). With considering, speaking and judging , the closest I can get to a subject-verb structure is by using a conditional clause: if we consider, if we speak of ..., if we judge by ...Read More...

The same to you! According to my reasoning and considering that "statement" is singular, you should use "show s ."Read More...

Thanks a lot! Could you comment on another question I just posted - https://thegrammarexchange.inf...-present-participle?Read More...

Hi, Language learner Yes, (1) and (2) are similar in that "can" expresses a higher likelihood of getting skin diseases or getting into trouble than "could." I see the use of "can" or "could" here as different from (1) and (2). In (3), we can naturally reinforce either "can" or "could" with the adverb "possibly": - He won in every other way one can / could possibly imagine. Both "can" and "could" can be used to refer to the present (in which case "can" is more certain than "could"), but...Read More...

You're very welcome Oh, I didn't know that - I thought Gustavo was just an outstanding member with a passion for spreading his linguistic knowledge. Yeah, it makes sense since, I believe, everyone no matter the faith celebrates New Year's Day; I just felt like saying Merry Christmas, anyway 😊Read More...

Merry Christmas, Gustavo. Participle phrases are quite problematic. Taking into account the phenomenon of misplaced participles (because I incorrectly called them before as dangling), this sentence should not be ambiguous because participle phrases modify the nouns they are the closest to in a sentence, thus in your sentence, "fading" would have to refer to "shores." Otherwise, the participle would have to be moved to the front: Fading into the fog, tall, rigid trees stretch along the...Read More...

Ah! I hadn't thought of it that way; however, it makes complete sense with your explanations. It's interesting how grammar errors like this can feel 'off,' even though noun and verb phrases were not on my mind at all. So, thank you for explaining with such clarity - now I can see that I was working with a correlative conjunction, which must conjoin parallel phrases, of which a noun and verb phrase together are not. Thank you, both - much appreciated. (And thanks for the warm welcome!)Read More...

Thank you so much David! c. He has been growing, since he became a manager. I guess in that one 'since' could only mean 'because' unless the clause has been added as an afterthought. But what about d. Since he became a manager he has been growing. e. Since he became a manager, he has been growing. Are those sentences ambiguous? Is the comma necessary? Does it change anything? Many thanksRead More...

Thanks a lot Mr David, but what about this last sentence: "I wish you could travel to Mecca when you intend" Is it OK?Read More...

Hi, Azz, They could be about the same woman, or they could be about different women. I think that it is harder to interpret (a) as being about the same woman than it is to interpret (b) that way. But both sentences can go either way. Sentence (b) works with that intended meaning, but the natural interpretation of (a) is that the marriage did not actually take place either time. It almost did. No, I don't think either sentence works in that context. Again, (a) indicates that neither marriage...Read More...

Hi, Ahmed—Both choices are grammatically acceptable. Without additional context, however, there is no need for the past perfect. You can just use "intended." On the other hand, if we had a context in which, say, the referent of "you" was in Mecca, but had intended to travel there sooner than he did, the past perfect would make sense.Read More...

I agree with Lucas and Gustavo that (B) is the only correct choice, and with Gustavo's explanation of why that is. I'd simply like to add that you might hear conditionals like the one with (A) as the answer in nonstandard, dialectal English, such as African American Vernacular English (a.k.a. Ebonics). However, "if" would likely be omitted. The two clauses would be linked by asyndetic coordination: You post that picture of Mike, he gets angry fo-sho. Obviously, such a sentence would never be...Read More...

Indeed! I'd say that the occurrence of "of sb's interest" seems to be rather marginal, especially in subject complement position, i.e. after a copula. (Source: Google Books Ngram Viewer )Read More...

Yes, they are similar, but "funds" is the money itself while "funding" is the action of providing that money.Read More...

Hello, Achi, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. The correct sentence is " New Life's got talent ." The apostrophe-"s" represents a contraction of "has." The sentence is thus: "New Life has got talent." "New Life got talent" can only be used in Ebonics (African American Vernacular English) to mean "New Life has talent." In standard English, "New Life got talent" is equivalent in meaning to "New Life received talent," which doesn't make sense.Read More...