I think there is a word missing in the sentence, but not the one you think it is.
I would expect
Three things in life that, once lost, are hard to build up.
Once lost is a "small clause", equivalent to once they are lost; it is also common enough to qualify as an idiom.
Note also that this is not a full sentence, since everything after "that" is a ...
What's happening in these sentences is that you are starting with an original idea like this:
I have never met a man who is as rich as he is rich.
That sentence sounds strange because we haven't applied any ellipsis- the process of pruning unnecessary or repeated items from a sentence. The minimum ellipsis for a natural sentence is to remove the repeated ...
Of is not 'deleted' in the second sentence; it is improperly intruded into the first.
This intrusive of has been common in colloquial English at least since I was a child in the 1950s, but it is not acceptable in formal writing.
As for the article: it is required by the ordinary sense:
He is a man.
It falls after the adjective here because ...
The first of the two consecutive weres is the verb in the relative clause headed by that; you are called upon to infer its complement, which is the same as the complement of the previous were. The second is the verb in the main clause
SUBJECT: Many of the programs
PREDICATE: were not available
As @P.E.Dant writes, dropping it is ellipsis. So if either option is less careful, it would be dropping, not adding, the second verb. (That said, both are very common in every register of speech.)
The "redundant" option is often used to avoid ambiguity, because the other side of the comparison could be the subject or the object of a previous verb.
The two verb phrases sent soldiers... and is nonetheless... are conjoined by but and share the subject, Poland; parse it like this:
sent soldiers ...
is nonetheless ...
went to bed
could not sleep.
After the verb Help, you can have an infinitive form of verb. The infinitive form can be either a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive. That is actually optional. Mostly in conversation or informal English, the to is often left out.
He helps him (to) learn Russian.
Alex helped a blind man (to) cross the road.
N.B So a bare infinitive as well as ...
Take a second is a phrase that is used to emphasise how quickly something of comparatively great benefit can be done. It's often used in the phrase "it'll only take a second".
It is used to encourage someone to do something they might not necessarily want to do. In your example, writers are being implored to think about what they are trying to say. The ...
It is very casual and informal. When in doubt, I recommend that you do not use it. It is quite different from Italian or Spanish, where subject pronouns can be left out; in English (and other Germanic languages), it is unusual. I would interpret it as follows:
You are in a hurry or working on an awkward keyboard;
Or this text is not important;
Or you are ...
So my original answer was incorrect. "Hope this helps!" is a declarative, not an imperative. Instead of deleting my answer, I think it might be helpful to explain why I should have known it wasn't an imperative, and pull out the bits from the original that were correct.
Imperative clauses are usually in the second person, like:
"Hope for the best!" (You ...
The first "for" does indeed mean "because". The second one, however, means "aimed at". So the sentence basically means this:
These [writings] were chosen by teachers in the Renaissance after a lot of thought and discussion, because works written by the sophisticated adults of pagan Rome [and] for an audience of similar sophisticated adults of pagan Rome ...
It is idiomatic to speak of the person using their name, even when speaking of body parts, and especially when speaking of the face, which can be very expressive of the person's self and identity.
Ron was bleeding.
Ron had turned a sickly shade of green.
Ron had turned a painful shade of red from lying out on the beach all day.
"turned ... ...
The statement is elliptical.
...so you don't have to work as hard [as you would have to work without their help].
It's like saying:
... so your job is easier.
Easier than what? Easier than it would otherwise be.
All three are OK, some purists will argue that the second is formally correct
I've never met a man as rich as he
The use of the personal pronoun ‘he’ sounds more refined to some ears, more "British" and therefore more correct.
The majority of native speakers will use the object pronoun, and say
I've never met a man as rich as him.
Tagging the ...
In your first example, there probably isn't an adequate grammatical rule about why. I can tell you the it is unnecessary, and generally you don't want to use more words than necessary to communicate. That probably isn't the answer you want, but you can think of it another way. There is only one subject ("the medicine") in that sentence so you don't need to ...
Await has both transitive and intransitive uses; I believe most of the other answers are focused on the transitive usage, reading the sentence as [Happiness] [awaits for] [you], which is indeed non-idiomatic. You can wait for something or someone, or await something or someone, but you would not await for it.
Happiness awaits for you is entirely grammatical ...
Exists and exist follow the ordinary convention for verbs: one is singular and the other is plural. Where mathematical usage differs from ordinary usage is in the way singular and plural are indicated in the subject that follows, and an implied “for all” later if the subject is plural.
Exists is singular:
There exists s'' in S such that s''(s'm – sm') = ...
Not only is it not necessary, it makes no sense to include it. "Songs when I used to listen to" is not a valid restrictive clause for the noun "songs". You could say "songs that I used to listen to", to qualify "songs" and reduce the possible reference set from "all songs". Then "that" can be left out to get your second sentence. But the first "when" is ...
In this sentence:
But, as time went on, it became increasingly obvious that many of the programs were not available, and the ones that were [available] were written in a particularly obscure form of BASIC.
The author has chosen not to repeat the word available. If we put that word back in, and if we mark the subject and predicate, it might make more ...
It's not short for anything. It's a direct instruction.
When forming a basic imperative, instructing someone to do an action, we just use the verb form directly, possibly with an exclamation mark:
This is the case whether we are instructing someone specific or people in general to perform the action.
But when we ...
Okay, there are two flaws with this sentence:
In English, it is generally considered polite to put yourself last in a list (assuming the list includes yourself). So the phrase would be "the wife and me" rather than "me and the wife".
The sentence is not grammatically correct because it has no subject. It should be, "IT has the wife and me ..." But leaving ...
Consistent with Jeff Morrow's answer, the following four options are grammatically correct:
This day will be forgotten just like the rest of the days are.
This day will be forgotten just like the rest of the days were.
This day will be forgotten just like the rest are.
This day will be forgotten just like the rest were.
There is a difference in meaning ...
Both versions are syntactically fine, but idiomatically native speakers would tend to "delete" all "highly predictable" repetitions of as a in such contexts (or at the very least, delete repeated as).
There's a slightly greater chance that the more verbose version would be understood as meaning I've had several different jobs - for example [blah blah], ...
JKR’s “authorial voice” is suppressed. She mostly writes in the casual dialect of her characters, to give a sense of how they experience the events of the story.
The very long noun phrase about the vampire conjoins two propositions about that creature:
he’d met the vampire in Romania
he was afraid [that] the vampire would be coming back to get him one ...
This crops up rather frequently because some people will compose a letter similar to the way we might give an answer over the phone, particularly when we are in a hurry. While I'm proofreading my email, I'll often notice I've done this – but it was generally inadvertent, and I usually change it, and add the subject, after I've noticed I've done it.