Let us try to parse these:
[It (subject)] [always (adverb, modifying the verb)] [works (verb)] [for me (prepositional phrase)]
Here "works" means "functions correctly". It refers to the machine that may misfunction.
[It (subject)] [is (verb)] [always (adverb, modifying is)] [work (noun, complement of "It is&...
In the context of use with singular nouns, the word "united" most closely means "complete" or "whole," and often refers to the coming-together of separate parts.
For example, the United Kingdom is actually made up of four countries; England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, so is the unity of separate parts (like the United States)....
Josh Blue is a comedian who has cerebral palsy, which is a neurological disorder affecting muscle development and movement. It is relatively easy to tell that someone has cerebral palsy by looking at them.
Other symptoms include seizures and problems with thinking or reasoning, which each occur in about one-third of people with CP.
So some ...
No. Because "neither" (in this construction) can only be used when you have just used the word "not": "it is not X and neither is it Y" or "A does not and neither does B". (Maybe there's some other word you could use in place of "not", but off the top of my head I can't think of one.) The fact that "...
The two noun phrases "Shildon Football club's top striker" and "Daniel Moore" are in apposition. Literally they are two nouns placed next to each other. Each can act as a modifier of the other. Together they form the subject of the sentence
The commas mark this as a non-restrictive appositive. You would normally put commas on both ...
It's "too much bad luck" and luck goes without an s, both for the same reason.
The reason is that luck as a noun is uncountable, you can't say "Shelby had three lucks yesterday."
Many is used for countable nouns and much for uncountable ones. For example,
I had too many peanuts to eat (I can count peanuts)
I had too much water to drink (...
By can be used with both nouns and gerunds to indicate cause - although your examples imply that blood vessels themselves fear, which makes little sense.
However, you can say things such as:
By effort we advance and
By reading we broaden our horizons.
The general rule is:
Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.
Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.
I know who your best friend is! (He/she is your best friend. Not *him/her is your best friend).
With whom am I speaking? (I am speaking with him/her. Not I am speaking *with he/she) (IELTSsite)
Yes, you can use "since" to mean from a specific point in time. For example, "I have felt ill since I ate that sushi". So, from an English grammar point of view, your example is fine. It helps establish that the person is not just in the top 1% of current students, but of all students, ever.
For the addresses, we don't know what it actually means and we don't care. A postal address is just a magical incantation that allows a letter to get to its destination. It is possible that Unit 1—3 is the third unit of block 1.
However, these might also be merged addresses. These are business addresses. The first one looks like the address on an industrial ...
Yes, good filling-in of the ellipsis.
This kind of inversion is common, if a bit formal / written rather than spoken. It's triggered by the fact that the second subject is so long that if "are" were placed after it, it might be hard to parse the comparison.
Star Trek: The Original Series places a stronger emphasis on bravado and interspecies ...
What English speakers would naturally do here to avoid repeating spend is not delete the second he spent but replace it with a form of the verb do, which for verbs plays the role that pronouns do for nouns.
I am certain that the time he spent in studying English is significantly more than that he did in studying Japanese.
Actually, that sentence is a ...
The first and the second are the usual "first and second conditional"
"If Hell opens".... (A condition I think is likely to occur)
"If Hell opened"... (A condition I think is unlikely to occur)
These are fairly neutral in their attitude towards Hell.
The third is used if the conditional form is unthinkably horrible. This ...
No, that’s not correct. In that situation, you should simply say “yes, I ate”. That tense is reserved for describing events that happened even further in the past than another event being discussed. For example:
Did you eat before you went to the store?
Yes, I had already eaten when I went to the store.
Both “going to the store” and “eating” happened in the ...
Yes, it is correct and natural to use "that when" in that sentence.
It's also true that you should not use two relative pronouns together. In this context, "that" is not a relative pronoun. Here, "that" is the head of a noun clause, while relative clauses with "that" are adjective clauses.
Some simpler examples to make ...
The first one is not in the passive voice, it is the continuous tense. You don't give us the context, but it looks like a prediction - that before long 'he' will be in a position of authority, the person that people have to answer to.
Your second version is a recommendation; it doesn't have the same meaning (and doesn't make much sense).