All Forum Topics

Azz wrote: That's actually not true. If a castle's guards are defending an attack on the north wall, the other three walls are more vulnerable to attack. This is also true of your body's immune system. DocVRead More...

Navi, To me, (4), (5), and (6) seem correct. If in doubt, insert "to be" after (seems/seemed). DocVRead More...

Hello, Lizzie, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange! Names of organizations do not readily accept commas, even if desirable in other contexts (as in phrases containing a noun and an apposition). I think the only commas that are commonly accepted are the ones appearing before Inc. and Ltd. in the names of companies. Note: Sorry, David. I just saw your reply. We seem to have been writing our answers at about the same time.Read More...

Hi, Zuotengdazuo, IMO, there is nothing wrong here. Yes, it is a mixed conditional 2/3. As you see, the speaker's present attitude is completely against the idea of asking 'why' before executing an order, so he uses type 2 counterfactual in the present and connects its imaginary results with type 3 counterfactual in the past. A thief -after becoming rich- would say: If I had morals, I would have never made my fortune.Read More...

Azz, I have no problem with (b). I would change (a) to: a1: You must have done something that hurt your wife's feelings terribly. Now, you might not even know what it was. Or maybe, it is something you know about but that seems unimportant to you. DocVRead More...

That is really nice, David. You're definitely right, David. I added it after writing the other, less awkward "In spite of it snowing," but -- fascinating as it may look -- this one went too far, I'm afraid.Read More...

They are not ungrammatical? I didn't know that. Thank you, DocV appleRead More...

Explaining why a reflexive pronoun does not work well in a prepositional phrase in such a sentence is not easy. I know of a doctoral dissertation on the topic. It's interesting that the reflexive pronoun does work in the variation " We don't know what we are going to do with ourselves / ?* us ." The reason may have to do with its being impossible for people to TAKE something with anyone other than themselves. The reflexive is unnecessary. In contrast, it is obviously possible for people to...Read More...

Hey, Firstly, I'd like to mention that the topic is not only what I have been endeavouring to inquire about but also it is what I have not been able to find a pleasing answer about; however, I consider now that I seem to have got the half-pleasing answer, which I want to complete the other half part with this to satisfy myself. For that reason, I'll give the examples that I wonder whether they are acceptable or can be used. The thing I am after is" modifying "you, I or me". Let me share the...Read More...

Thank you very much, DocV, … And John chased him with the sword and …. Respectfully, NaviRead More...

MissT, Hey, watch that about "unepic boomers". I represent that! I understand that you signed on for just the one question. I hope you'll be back though. DocVRead More...

Raymond, This is true. When the new format was imposed on us, our moderator David felt that he, Gustavo, and I, as well as several other members, were distinguished scholars to the extent that the "like" feature of Facebook and Mickey Mouse Club culture was beneath the dignity of this forum. I am in complete agreement with him. I speak for all of us though, when I say that we appreciate it when you take the time to write "thank you". Unfortunately, although we have managed to get the "like"...Read More...

Please excuse this "blast from the past" that I encountered today. Per David: A: "Three arms-wielding men" (note the hyphen, which is needed) is an indefinite noun phrase... I believe that David is correct about the necessity of the hyphen if the phrase is meant to indicate three men that were wielding arms. However, I must insist that B: "Three arms wielding men" (note the lack of a hyphen) is also grammatical. It must be understood to refer to three (disembodied?) arms that were using men...Read More...

Yes, DocV, that makes sense now. I've even found it as a restrictive clause, and the absence (perhaps objectionable) of the commas makes the adjectival interpretation even clearer: - The objective since attained was to create a set of contractual rules that would establish uniformity in that practice, so that practitioners would not have to cope with a plethora of often conflicting national regulations. ( https://www.fimbank.com/en/new...es-ucp-600-awareness )Read More...

I agree with you, Navi. I've heard both constructs used commonly, as well as these: 3: You'd be surprised by what he said. 4: You'd be surprised what he said. I'd say that all four are definitely acceptable in informal English. I think that, in formal writing, I would prefer (1) or (3), but I wouldn't go as far as to call either incorrect. DocVRead More...

To add to David's comments, the use of "be" instead of "are" can be considered either dialectical or archaic. DocVRead More...

Thank you, Gustavo. I was trying to avoid the redundancy of using both "give" and "gift" (forms of the same word) in the same sentence. You've offered some excellent options. DocVRead More...

Anson, I agree with you about (4). I also see a tense discrepancy in (2). (1) and (3) are grammatical, except for a missing "to" after "according". Also, the double reference to "customers" is distracting. What about this: 5: However, reviews show that customers have been complaining about having to pay a high customs duty when they receive their orders. DocVRead More...

Thanks a lot.Read More...

Thanks, Gustavo. I had been rather minimal in my response, but you have provided an excellent explanation of why our preferences work and the others don't. A piece of [a] large cake could actually be very small! DocVRead More...

Thank you, Ahmed, both for your effusively complimentary welcoming, and for your clarification of Abo Hamza's original post. DocVRead More...

Thank you, Doc V.Read More...