This sentence does not show possession through apostrophes, but by the verb, "own". An example using an apostrophe is, "It's Hannah's phone." BTW, the apostrophe in "it's" is used in the contraction of "it is", not the possessive pronoun, "its", which doesn't have an apostrophe to distinguish from the contraction.
See an amusing article on the Apostrophe ...
In that sentence, you don't need any appostrophes.
As you probably know, the construction apostrophe+s is a way to build the genitive case in English, a remnant of an old case system that has been largely lost in modern English.
Nouns in the genitive function as determiners of other nouns, and so appear in front of other nouns. So that is one way to tell ...
In your example no apostrophe is required.
You would required one if you wrote the iPhones' headphones, indicating more than one iPhone; or, the iPhone's headphone/s indicating a single iPhone.
Similarly, you would need one after any of the names: Sophie's headphone/s.
But the best solution is to google The use of apostrophes. You will find numerous sites ...
[In the UK]
We would usually re-order the line and say, "If it hadn't been / had it not been for her (and her quick thinking) they would all have died." ['her and her quick thinking' is a bit quaint.]
But, preserving your order, we might say either, "They would all have died if it hadn't been / had it not been for her and her quick thinking", or "They ...
In Australian English, particularly Sydney street/jail slang, it definitely means something very different; if Mr White got got for his crimes, then Mr White would be bleeding to death on a prison yard somewhere. Full of puncture wounds, probably also badly bruised. And nobody saw a thing.
Gon' or going to, or gonna...yes, correct. It's American thingy, hood version. All contractions simply accommodate a speaker for a concise, smooth, quick sentence. But in simple conversation, it's really redundant "gon'". Mostly it's used in songs, hip hop, like 6ix9ine's song "Gotti Gotti" ...I pray to God that my family gon'(gonna) see... So, ...
The apostrophe is used to indicate missing letters relative to some standard English.
There are a number of situations where letters may be missing: There are several common contractions, such as I'm for I am, or don't for do not. There is also the use of the apostrophe in possessives (originally also a contraction, now just a rule).
There is also the use ...
In Spanish, the preposition 'que' can function as many different words in English: "that", "which", "what", and so forth.
Likewise, in English, some words function as many different words in Spanish, depending on context: "that" by itself can be like "que", "para que", or even "quanto" depending on the context.
In the example you give, the difference is ...
When I was young, say fifty years ago, using do support with have was American: in British English we simply didn't say Do you have (unless we meant in a habitual sense): we said Have you got, or (in a more formal register) Have you.
Since then, Do you have and I don't have have become more common in British English, but they haven't completely driven out ...
The auxiliary "do" doesn't appear with the auxiliary "have". Not every "have" acts as an auxiliary.
She doesn't have brown hair.
This sentence is fine. This "have" is the main verb of its clause.
*She doesn't have bleached her hair.
She hasn't bleached her hair.
Here, he main verb is the particple "bleached". The "...
You are totally correct. The headline is simply not an accurate summary of the article.
"to ease" makes a definite predication.
"could ease" asserts a possibility.
Different people in a news agency write the articles (journalists) and the headlines (editors), and sometimes the editors don't read very well.
It's not idiomatic to "dry up your clothes" in American English. To my knowledge, it's also not idiomatic in British English.
You'll notice that of your results, four of the first five results appear to be Indian English. One is a novel self-published by an Indian author, one is a journal review from the Guild of Indian English, one is translated poetry, ...
The verb leave can take a for phrase indicating the destination. This can be a real place:
They left for Venice.
I'm leaving for the coast tomorrow.
Or a notional place (like a job):
She left for a much better job.
But it can't be an -ing clause.
There's not really any reason for this (most -ing clauses don't make sense as destinations, but ...
Would you really leave your position to start your own business?
If we said "leave your job for another job", the other job is seen as a relatively static thing that already exists. You would be leaving your job for this thing. Starting your own business is an activity that you would be doing, so we would say, "to do", i.e. "to start your own business".
Be very leery about using the word only when giving rules about English.
you only use the proposition 'on' with nouns that refer to groups of people
The three example nouns you provided – team, board, commission – indeed typically use on instead of in. However, I thought of three other nouns (there are probably a few more) that can refer to ...
Okay, I am not a native speaker, but this seems to be an easy task, so let's borrow the BBC's explanation about the difference between in front of and before.
As a preposition.
Before is not normally used to refer to place. We normally use in front of to specify place the opposite of which is behind. Compare the following:
Sam was sitting in front ...
The before / in front of distinction (when they have essentially the same meaning, which certainly isn't always the case1) isn't really about "formality". Mostly it's just that to stand before [something] has been in long-term decline by comparison with to stand in front of [it]. This doesn't create a very strong distinction, but before in such contexts is ...
Before is either a bit formal or could be used for stylistic effect, if used in this context. She may well stand before the Bench in a Court of Law...
I would say that a vending machine would only warrant "standing in front of", in the normal course of events.
Yes, both of those work well, though "bent forward" could also be use.
Forearms are generally not referred to in this way, possibly because it is considered a group of parts, though both knees and thighs are specific and appropriate.
Do note that "on a chair" obscures the posturing a bit and can be interpreted multiple ways. It would be better to refer to ...