March 2023

Yes, that is correct. Actually, the absence of the article is much more usual than its presence. From Ngram Viewer:Read More...

Hi, all, From 'The New Fowlers English Usage', page 350: 2 hardly... than. This, and the parallel constructions barely ... than and scarcely ... than, which have arisen by analogy with no sooner than, are labelled by the OED (s.v. than conj. 3d) with the condemnatory sign ¶ The examples cited are: He had scarcely won for himself the place which he deserved, than his health was found shattered- Froude, 1864; Hardly had the Council been re-opened at Trent... than Elizabeth was allying herself...Read More...

Hi, Azz, I think they are all ambiguous depending on whether the novelty is attributed to "the/their method to learn/which allows you to learn five languages simultaneously" (there was a former method, or there were former methods to learn five languages simultaneously that worked differently) or to the possibility of learning five languages simultaneously by means of the new method (the old one/s did not allow it). The two ideas could perhaps be more easily understood by enclosing the...Read More...

Gustavo, I really appreciate your kind response. Learning is a never-ending journey!Read More...

If the words which follow "said" and which are not enclosed in quotation marks rephrase—in your own words—aspects of what he said, without changing the meaning or adding or subtracting from it, then what you have done is to use a combination of quotation and paraphrase. That is quite different from what you did in your opening post. In that post, you did not paraphrase at all. All you did was take some quotations and omit some words from them. What I want to make sure you understand is that...Read More...

Ray and David, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your kind response. Learning something new always feels great, and thanks to both of you, I have gained a new understanding.Read More...

Hello, Izzat Hannah—When you ask, " DO these two sentences have the same meaning?," do you mean, " CAN these two sentences have the same meaning?" If so, the answer is, yes, they can. They can both be indirect-speech versions of: Hellen said, "I love visiting New York." But if you mean, " MUST these two sentences have the same meaning in all possible contexts?," the answer is, no, they need not have the same meaning. Ahmed has clarified how it is possible for them to have different meanings.Read More...

This speaker of American English, given a choice between the present perfect or the simple past with "already," does prefer to use the present perfect. At the same time, I do not deny that I commonly hear the simple past. The robot is speaking natural, if a bit unfortunate, English here, at least in American English.Read More...

Hi, Janice—ESL students are standardly advised not to use infinive phrases as sentence subjects. In subject position, gerund phrases tend to sound much more natural. As Ahmed has indicated, infinitives tend to have a much more formal sound in that position. An infinitive can be naturally and correctly used in a variation of your second sentence. This one uses expletive "it": It is not acceptable in my culture to hug. In that sentence, "to hug" is an extraposed subject. "It" doesn't mean...Read More...

Thank you, David. Here is the passage in question:Read More...

To add to David's answer above, I think the reason underlying the unacceptability of the first sentence is related to the general restrictions of using "(very) much" as a pronoun in the affirmative: *This is much. *This is very much. - This is a bit much. - This is so much. - This is too much. The same restriction may apply when "(very) much" is used as a determiner in the affirmative: *He has much money. *He has very much money. - He has so much money. - He has too much money.Read More...

Hi, Gustavo, appreciate your clarification. Also, thanks for your nice explanation with ". . . a large request (attending an out-of-town concert), then asking them for something smaller . . .".Read More...

Hi, Hossam Nigm, It seems that you are in a hurry. You have forgotten to insert 'before' in the title of this thread. 'Have you bought bread you come here?' is ungrammatical and meaningless. It doesn't sound natural. You can say: - Will you bring bread before you come home? (Indicating future incident) - Do you bring bread before you come home? (Indicating a habit) You can see Rachel's reply for a similar question here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...r-before-i-come-here No, 'came' here is...Read More...

To add to Gustavo's correct explanation, I think there is no contradiction about the use of "of all time." At first, it should be made clear that the grammatical concept of time differs from that in real life. "of all time" indicates a statement is true through the time that it is made. It may or may not include the real-time present moment, contingent upon the context. His being the best neurosurgeon of all time was true at the time that the statement was made, with no reference to if it is...Read More...

You can have a look at 'Collins COBUILD English Grammar'.Read More...

Thank you so muchRead More...

Hi, Gustavo, Sorry, Gustavo. This happened because of my mobile phone. I tried many times to fix it, but it didn't work.Read More...

Thank you so muchRead More...

Hi, Andrew, I agree with David. One thing is to live in an environment (according to your paraphrase), and quite another is to grow up in an environment—the latter verb, which is the one used in the original text, entails an evolution from childhood to adulthood. A 5th grader would be around 10, and will finish high school at around 18. By the time the girl turns 18, the decisions made during this period will have determined the conditions of the world in which she has grown up.Read More...

Hi, Andrew, According to The Chicago Manual of Style Online: Hyphenation Table , it should not be hyphenated when used inside a prepositional phrase ( in the near term, in the long term ) and should be hyphenated when used as a compound adjective ( near-term proposal, long-term plan ):Read More...

Hi, Essam Nasr, and 'Happy Ramadan', No, the past simple tense is the one that's normally used in this case. I think you miss the point here. When you mention the pharaohs or Graham Bell, the time frame is already established in the past, especially with verbs that happen only once. It is something that happened a long time ago. You can't say 'Naguib Mahfouz has written many great stories. Many people still enjoy reading them.' Naguib Mahfouz passed away many years ago. However, you can...Read More...

Hi, Tony, Yes, that is correct. Being a collective nominalized adjective, "the poor" means "(all) the poor people." If you say "poor people" (without the article), the collective sense is lost.Read More...

Thank you for this clarification, Gustavo!Read More...

Again, your assumption is wrong. Stranding is NOT necessary in that sentence. The following sentence is perfectly grammatical: He asked me to whom I gave the message. No. "On" and "to" commonly go and function together syntactically. Indeed, the one-word preposition "onto" represents the morphological matrimony of their syntactic love affair. When you try to follow "on" with "to" in such a way that "to" has absolutely nothing to do with "on," you tear the two asunder and do violence to the...Read More...