All Forum Topics

Hello, MaaAdjoa, and welcome to GE! I agree with Gustavo's answer and, like you, share his preference for (1). The hyphen after "time" in (1) is sometimes referred to as a suspensive hyphen . Another option is to use a relative clause: 4- a manner that saves time and money I'm not saying that I prefer (4) to (1). There is a good chance that I would use (1).Read More...

Thank you very much.Read More...

Gustavo and David, thank you for your replies. In a later email from my tech writer friend, he clarified that he agreed with me.Read More...

Great reply .Read More...

Yes, I realize that you guys are looking for a detailed explanation, and I have decided to turn this into a research project. Please give me about a week, and I will try to clear up the mystery of will versus be going to to the best of my ability. As a native speaker, I never (or almost never) have to think about it. As a grammar-forum moderator, though, I encounter the question regularly, and I very often disagree with Egyptian "model answers" in this department! The distinction between...Read More...

No, Menem, you can't. You need "go" or "should go" there.Read More...

Hi, Azz, Where you said above: "*He'll set things straight before," I'm sure you meant to say "He set things straight before." I think both interpretations are possible. Interpretation (2) might be a case of "excessive conciseness," so to say, but I wouldn't say it's wrong. Context can help, for example: - When we bought this house, this wall was white. Then we painted it gray. Now we'll paint it white again. (Now we'll paint it white + As a result the wall will be white again.)Read More...

Hi, Freeguy, Syntactically, either interpretation is possible, and ellipsis is not involved: 1) They could [ travel farther from the landing site to investigate more of the lunar environment ] and [ collect a wider range of soil and rock sample ] . 2) The could travel farther from the landing site to [ investigate more of the lunar environment ] and [ collect a wider range of soil and rock sample ] . In (1), two verb phrases are coordinated as complements of the modal "could": the verb...Read More...

Hello, Abdullah, Based on the information presented by Gustavo in this thread , yes, you can say: It's boring waiting at bus stops. It's boring to wait at bus stops.Read More...

It is superfluous to add time after weeks, hours, years or any increment that only refers to time. Minutes and seconds could also be referring to an increment of angle; but context would make that clear.Read More...

This question has already been asked and answered twice in the last day.Read More...

Hello, Ruifeng, Yes, you can use "again and again" for that purpose. "Again and again" is commonly used that way, and your example is fine.Read More...

Thank you very much, David, Just to clarify, I thought one should say 1 b) In the doorway, stood a tall dark woman. and 1a) In the doorway, a tall dark woman stood. sounded bad. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned inversion. Gratefully, NaviRead More...

ThanksRead More...

Hi, Mr. Ahmed, This is the second question that has been asked twice today: https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/topic/future-21Read More...

Hello, Ahmed Imam Attia, Someone else has asked the very same question today. Please see the answer I have just given Abdullah Mahrouse at the link below: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...or-first-conditionalRead More...

Hi, Islam Mohamed, Both answers are correct. I would more naturally use "is going to," but "will" works perfectly well there. If a student answers "will," the answer should not be marked incorrect. It would be good if another choice were added: "both" (the true model answer).Read More...

Hello, Rasha Assem, I agree with David. The clues to interpret that the past is real (not unreal or "subjunctive," as you say) in the original sentence are "last week" in the condition and "had" in the result. If "last week," which refers to one particular broadcast of the program, and "had," which refers to one specific occurrence in the past (the fact that the program left many questions about trees unanswered) were not present, then we could interpret the condition as describing a...Read More...

Hi, David, Ahmed Imam Attia seems to be confused by this explanation he got on another forum: It is my understanding (and it also seems to be yours) that "would" does not work with a perfect infinitive to express a present statement about the likelihood of a past event . "will" and "may" definitely work to express that meaning. "could" and "might" would work if the probability of that past occurrence were deemed to be more remote, but I don't think "would" would be a good choice. Let's...Read More...

Hi, David, Sorry for my delay in reply. No, Mr. Swan doesn't make any comments for that matter.He just presents facts. Thanks again for your help.Read More...

David, many thanks for your reply. Much appreciated - BRead More...

Hello, Rasha, We use the progressive in the passive voice in the same types of circumstances in which we use the progressive in the active voice. The progressive allows us to talk about what is or was happening at a certain time or time period. The comma before "to help planes land" tells us that the main point of the sentence is that it was the first time radar was used at all. The fact that it was to help planes land is a parenthetical detail. I don't know whether you have access to the...Read More...

Hi, Ahmed55, Yes, "will go" is incorrect. You have titled this thread "present or future," but "go" is not the present tense here. It is the present subjunctive . The common alternative to using the present subjunctive in a clause complementing "suggest" is to use "should" + [base form]. She suggested that he go fishing tomorrow and he liked the idea. She suggested that he should go fishing tomorrow and he liked the idea.Read More...