February 2020

I'm done having this discussion with you, des3. Have a nice day.Read More...

See the answer to these questions here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...1#622256385764267831Read More...

Thank you! I will do that search.Read More...

Excellent explanation. Everything is clear in now！Read More...

Hi, bear_bear—Ahmed has recommended some good sentences. Both the sentences in (1) are correct, however; they simply have different meanings. "I'm sorry to hear bad news" means that you are sorry whenever you hear bad news, i.e., bad news makes you feel sorry. "I'm sorry to hear the bad news," on the other hand, means that there is, in the context, some specific bad news that you are sorry to hear. Both sentences in (2) are also correct, again with different meanings. "I stepped on a broken...Read More...

Hi, Bear_Bear, I'd say: Would you like to come to my birthday party?Read More...

Hi, Bear-Bear, I'm sure you know that team sports that are played with a ball take 'play' and activities ending with 'ing' take 'go', while violent and recreational activities take 'do'. However, when you ask the question 'what sports do you do?', you can use 'do' before all sports. See here: http://www.learnenglishlanguag...ports-play-do-or-go/ So, I see that 'a' and 'e' are perfect. 'B' and 'd' are acceptable answers (because of the form of the question that precedes them). 'C' is ...Read More...

Hi, Azz, Both 'a' and 'b' don't tell the exact number of books stolen from him. If the addressee knows that exact number, he / she will understand the speaker's intended meaning. It is correct, but funny, as it means that a certain book was stolen from him more than once. It doesn't convey your intended meaning above. I think you can better use your words above: He had three books. Each time, one book was stolen from him.Read More...

When to Form a Plural with an Apostrophe By Maeve Maddox This reader wants to know why we write 1980s and not 1980’s. A lot of writers share this reader’s understanding that non-letter characters are pluralized by adding apostrophe s. Alas. Alas, indeed. That pesky apostrophe raises a lot of blood pressure for writers of English. I can’t really answer the reader’s question. What I can do is lay out what the Chicago Manual of Style says about when to use an apostrophe and when not to. And it...Read More...

Hi, Kezi, and welcome to G.E, I see this question is highly problematic, so I'd like just to express my opinion about it. On 'LDOCE', we have two examples that summarize my opinion: 1. A total of thirteen meetings were held to discuss the issue. 2. A total of $950 million was spent on the new transportation system. I see 'a total of' works like 'collective nouns'. It could be followed by a singular or a plural verb depending on how the speaker sees the individuals of the group. I think that...Read More...

Hello, Apple—Yes, that is correct. "My phone" can be used in reference to your phone no matter what type of phone you have, and "I have lost my phone" can likewise be used no matter what type of phone you have.Read More...

I agree with Ahmed that "will have increased" is the best answer, and with you, Muh, that the progressive is wrong. While "will increase" is possible, it improperly conveys that the increase may be a sudden jump. What is needed is the idea that a process of increase will have reached a certain level by a certain date, and for that the future perfect is needed. Here is a simpler example for comparison: Your child will have grown to a height of at least 4 feet by the time he or she is a teenager.Read More...

Thank you Mr.AhmedRead More...

Thank you. That was a typo. I should have been more careful. AppleRead More...

Hello Gustavo, thanks for the fast reply!Read More...

Hi, Ahmed, I prefer to see it as a third conditional sentence, without 'now'. When you see the link below, you will see that the original source of this sentence doesn't include 'now' . https://books.google.com.eg/bo...very+different+now.+ However, I agree with your colleagues that inserting 'now' would mean that you are thinking about a present state 'counterfactual', and that would require 'would + inf.' For example: 1. A: How different would the world have been if the wheel hadn't been...Read More...

Hello, SoulReaver09, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. Both were and was are correct. According to (mainly British) grammar purists, "were" is more correct than "was," which is considered more informal. This has to do with the subjunctive form of the verb be (in some grammar books, you may also find it under the name of unreal past , that is, a past form that does not convey past meaning): - I wish this were (was) a trick. - If only this were (was) a trick. - It's time the trick were...Read More...

Thanks a lot Mr.AhmedRead More...

Hi, Joshua—Both sentences are totally ungrammatical. You haven't used "explore"/"explores" grammatically in either sentence, and (1) suffers from the additional error, common among English language learners whose grammar is weak, that you have used inversion in an embedded question. You can't explore someone to do something . Maybe the word you're looking for is "implore." If you changed "explore" to "implore," then (2) would be correct: (2a) Explain how a CEO could implore them to plan and...Read More...

Hi, Joshua—Neither (1) nor (2) is correct or appropriate: (1) is an absurd inversion of " An important tool for assessing how well your business has performed is in view of strategic evaluation ," which makes no sense at all, and (2) is not even a sentence (it's a fragment, an introductory phrase). You could use (2) as part of a larger sentence, however. The following would be correct: (2a) In view of strategic evaluation being an important tool for assessing how well your business has...Read More...