May 2021

Hi, Gustavo, Unfortunately, this is a question in today's online exam. One of the purposes of online exams is to avoid the mistakes made in traditional ones! Hi, Omar, No, I see that the correct answer is 'Homeless population'.Read More...

Hi, Safaa, Both are grammatically correct. 'Have to' is more formal and can be used for habitual actions. 'Have got to' is less formal and is more common in spoken English. It is not normally used to talk about repeated obligation. For more information, s ee here: https://dictionary.cambridge.o...e-got-to-and-have-toRead More...

Hi, Navi, I agree with you that the intended meaning, which in my opinion is not properly expressed from a grammatical point of view, is: - And in her book, Stephanie Winston Walkoff describes a small, intimate inauguration dinner at the White House with the Trump family that she attended where Donald Trump Jr. was also present. The second relative clause above, which I find necessary in written language, is sometimes replaced with a coordinate clause ( and Donald Trump Jr. was there too )...Read More...

Hi, bear, No, I don't think so. I don't think using 'fighting' alone would make sense. However, on other occasions, you can use 'keep fighting' for the purpose you mentioned above.Read More...

Thank you very much, Gustavo, for all your kind replies, This usage of 'where' seems complicated. I have to think about it some more, but I really find your analysis fascinating and brilliant. FANTASTIC! Thanks again. Respectfully, NaviRead More...

Thank you very much! I get it!Read More...

Hello, Ahmed Imam Attia—I agree with Gustavo that only "other than" works there, and neither "rather than" nor "instead of" would work in its stead. If "rather than"/"instead of" is used, the implication will be, absurdly, that coffee is not something to drink: "Don't bring me coffee. Bring me something to drink." Notice, too, that "other than" can, unlike "rather than" or "instead of," be placed right after "something": "Bring me [something other than coffee] to drink."Read More...

Thank you Gustavo!Read More...

I will number them, since I also found the numbers helpful for discussion. Thanks. I think you've made a good point. Someone argues with me that "the" is totally unacceptable to substitute for "a" there. I thought both were grammatically correct, but there was a difference, which I couldn't describe, and you've made that perfectly clear.Read More...

NOUN 4. OLD-FASHIONED , Poetic a serene expanse , as of sky or water (Collins) _________________ NOUN archaic usually the serene (Oxford) An expanse of clear sky or calm sea. ‘not a cloud obscured the deep serene’Read More...

Hi, Sub, In either case, I see that 'while' sounds more natural to use. Swan, page 68, says, "We usually use while to say that two longer actions or situations go/went on at the same time. We can use progressive or simple tenses. - you were reading the paper, I was working. - John cooked supper while I watched Tv. We prefer when to refer to ages and periods of life.Read More...

ThanksRead More...

Hello, Ilko, That is a very simple sentence. What makes you think it could be wrong?Read More...

Hi, Apple—It was actually Gustavo who replied above, not I. There is nothing wrong with speaking of being proud of being able to do something, though I agree with Gustavo that it is a bit wordy. Also, I would more naturally use an infinitival complement ("proud to be able to") or "proud of his ability to": Being 95, Mr. Green is proud to (still) be able to run.Read More...

Thanks David, I have copied it correctly from an outside book. I have just wanted to make sure that it is a typo or a mistake.Read More...

I Understand. Thank you.Read More...

Hi, mo7amed, Yes, both "taking" and "which takes" are correct. Please note that in AmE we would use "elevator" instead of "lift." Also, we would say "to floors 2, 4 and 6," but "to the 2nd, 4th and 6th floors."Read More...

sorry for the inconvenience. The required changes will be made.ThanksRead More...

Hello, Milezero, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I don't like the use of "would" in this case. You can also say: - The trial is to enroll an estimated 50 participants. However, none of the sentences above unequivocally expresses that there may be a reduction in the number — there could be more or less. If you want to make clear that the number may be lower but not higher, you could say: - The trial is to enroll an estimated maximum of 50 participants. You may also want to use the...Read More...

Hi, Subhajit—The basic meaning of (1) and (2) is the same. However, each sentence foregrounds one of the situations (the situation expressed by the main clause) and backgrounds the other situation (the situation expressed by the subordinate clause). Context alone will determine which of them is better.Read More...

Thank you Sir😄Read More...

Hi, Ilko—No, it should be "I cut through this piece."Read More...

I really appreciate your replies, GustavoRead More...

Hello, Heather, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange. I have numbered your examples for ease of reference. Incidentally, you may want to see our Guidelines . Both "having eaten" and "eating" are non-finites, that is, forms of the verb which are not conjugated and are thus tenseless. "Having eaten" is a perfect participle, while "eating" is a present participle (not to be confused with the past participle eaten ). My understanding is that with the perfect participle, "upon" is more like...Read More...

It is very helpful, thank you.Read More...