March 2021

Hi, Kinto, I agree with Ahmed that "shoot" in "shoot to fame" is intransitive, as is "rise." You have never seen anyone write "be risen to fame" not only because the idiom is "rise to fame" but also because "rise" is always intransitive. The transitive form is "raise," so you can only find "be raised ," and never "be risen."Read More...

Hi, Cristi, 'Let me / Allow me to refresh your memory' is not rude, but informal . So, you can use it with a friend as you have mentioned in your question. If you want to sound formal, you can use something like 'May I remind you that / of ....? " In addition, if you are talking to a person in charge and you want to repeat the main points of an explanation or description, you can say, " To recap, ....................."Read More...

Hi, Tony C, Both "during" and "in" work there.Read More...

Thanks AhmedRead More...

I'm aware that the word "sticked" exists, Cristi, but I am recommending that you used "stuck" if you wish your English to sound natural. I never hear anyone use "sticked," and my computer even underlines it as incorrect. I am informing you that STUCK is the best word to use. "Lift consists of three sides." Why are you not using "the"? What do you mean by " I suppose to mean "? "On" can be used for sticking something on the exterior; it doesn't. If an English speaker wanted to speaking of...Read More...

@David, Moderator Good example!Read More...

Hello, Ana4316, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I've been doing some research because, like you, it sometimes seemed to me that inferential (not temporal) "then" did take a comma after it, and other times I felt the comma could be done away with, so I had decided on principle that it was optional. I have found this material according to which, when used for enumeration or chronological sequence, no comma is used: My impression is that inferential then is more likely to take a comma...Read More...

Hi, Navi and Gustavo, Yes, I agree with you, Gustavo, that "if"/"whether" clauses don't work as well as "that"-clauses when they are embedded in relative clauses. Indeed, in generative grammar, embedded questions are ISLANDS, a jargon term for a syntactic entities out of which WH-movement cannot take place. Thus, not only does the "if"/"whether" interpretation not work as well, but it is actually ungrammatical. Meaning (b) is grammatically impossible. Compare: (2) * He saw things that he...Read More...

Yes, Ilko, the sentence is correct. Does anything trouble you about it?Read More...

Hi, Navi, I think I'd prefer to use "altogether" at the beginning, but I don't think your sentence is wrong. To me, the meaning is the one specified as (3) here :Read More...

Thank you, David, for clarifying that. I provided the context but your explanation about Alice's satisfaction with either of the two outcomes was really necessary, as well as nice.Read More...

Thanks DavidRead More...

No, " My favorite animal is dogs " is not idiomatic, even if you know some nonnative speakers who imagine that it's OK. You can, however, say either "Dogs are my favorite animal" or "Dogs are my favorite animals." Both are OK.Read More...

Hi, Me_IV, For "so that" to mean "in order that" (purpose), there has to be a modal in the second clause: will, can, may in present contexts; would, could, might in past contexts. Therefore, your sentence is equivalent to (2) and "so that" expresses result there.Read More...

Hello Jack, Thank you very much for your reply. Assuming you are a native speaker, I especially cherish your judgement. (I’m a non-native teacher of English in Hong Kong.) But here I may be more interested in the other meaning of “meanwhile”: used to compare two aspects of a situation (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 7th Edition), which has nothing to do with the timeline, “at the same time” or “for now”. In this sense, I find it rather close to “on the other hand”. So for sentences...Read More...

On page 928 of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk et al make a clear distinction between pure coordinators ( and, or, but ) and what they call semi- or quasi-coordinators (e.g. so, for ) under item 13.19 (the bolds are mine): It follows that "but" admits subject ellipsis (just like and and or ) but "so" does not. As a result, all of the examples you have found, which were really hard to read as transcribed, are ungrammatical, as is your sentence (1) above. What you could...Read More...

Hi, Vahidkiaa, Grammatically speaking, 'a lot of' is a quantifier here, just like 'many'. It modifies either a plural noun or an uncountable noun. With plural nouns, a plural verb is used. With uncountable nouns, a singular verb is used. Since apples is a plural noun, the correct answers are those using ' are '. BTW, there is not much difference between using 'a lot of' and 'lots of' in your examples. Another important point is that, in informal conversation , it is common for some native...Read More...

Hi, all—EG, you have raised an important point. From the point of view you are looking at the sentences, "I didn't play tennis last week" does have a much more general application, and that is worth pointing out. Indeed, its more general applicability explains the grammaticality difference between these sentences: (3a) I didn't play tennis at any point in time last week. (3b) * I didn't play tennis at any point in time a week ago. That said, the assumption I was making was that the OP,...Read More...

Hi, Wael—Both (A) and (B) are correct answers, and both (C) and (D) are not. To decide whether (A) is better or (B) is better, we need context, and we have none.Read More...

Hi, poet20, The width of a river does not prevent you from swimming in it (at most, you may not be able to cross it if it is too wide). I think they wanted to use "low." You can also use "shallow," as opposed to "deep."Read More...

From my experience, I can assure you that it is a misconception that all lawyers are good writers. Their style of writing is so convoluted that they sometimes forget the rules of grammar and lose the thread of what they are saying.Read More...

Thanks, Gustavo and David. I also feared that it was quoted incorrectly in the test, so I found the source https://www.economist.com/lead...08/30/as-easy-as-zyx Since I wasn't sure if everybody here subscribed it, I didn't post the link.Read More...

Thanks both Ahmed and David, it's interesting. My bad, it's a typo, I understand documents is a "plural".Read More...

Correct answer.Read More...

Thank you, David, for clarifying that. My "mid-Atlantic" education in English, as DocV once accurately defined it, sometimes falls short of some American standards.Read More...