It appears that Grammarly objects to the use of the word "chaos" as a countable noun, with a singular article "an". Indeed "chaos" is normally uncountable.
It is possible to use chaos as a countable noun. So "an unfathomable chaos" is perfectly good English, and Grammarly is indeed getting it wrong. But perhaps you should consider rephrasing. It's not ...
As you say, swapping the order of adverb and verb is a poetic construction -- but that doesn't always make it good poetry. There's nothing grammatically wrong with "nothing know", but in my opinion it does not flow elegantly -- or, as you might poetically say
It does not elegantly flow.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to define the rules (such as they are)...
It depends on what you want to say.
If you mean that you want to improve the quality of your comprehension, then "comprehensive quality" is correct.
If you mean that you have many qualities, and you want to strengthen them all, then "comprehensive qualities" is correct. (here comprehensive describes the qualities you will strengthen)
Because you don't have to have an explicit determiner for plural nouns. Remove the adjective:
An event for friends.
That's absolutely fine. The addition of the adjective best doesn't change anything.
An event for best friends.
There's nothing odd to see here; this is perfectly normal.
The s, on the end of the verb is not the form of plural, as it would be for nouns (e.g. books). It is the standard verb conjugation stating that when in present tense, third person, singular, you need to add an s to the end of the verb.
He/she/it runs <- only need to change here
Here is your original sentence:
When I was a mere child, my mother supported my father who easily got sick and had to be admitted to the hospital and went through all the hardships.
First of all, there is a certain level of ambiguity here when it comes to the mother. If you want to make it clear that it was your mother who went through all of the ...
Normally when referring to oceans or seas you would use the word "the". For example, you would write:
The Titanic sunk in the Atlantic Ocean.
The Titanic sunk in Atlantic Ocean.
However, in your example "North Sea" is not being used to refer to the sea itself. It is being used as a descriptor of the oil rigs. I.e. these were not just ...
I have had partaken will always be ungrammatical. So, the sentence needs to be rephrased no matter what.
To me, there are more idiomatic ways of writing the sentence:
1. By the time I finish writing this text, I will have partaken of the brew for a total of 3 times.
In this version, the text has not yet been written, and it is talking about a future ...
By the time of writing this text, I have had partaken of the brew for
a total of 3 times. 🚫
There is more than one error in your sentence. However "have had" is completely wrong. This is because in both cases you are using "to have" as an auxiliary verb. It is possible to say, "have had" but only if the the second word is the main verb of the sentence.
A very clear explanation is here:
When two subjects are joined by neither-nor or either-or, [...] focus your attention on the noun closest to the verb.
If it is singular, as in the sentence above, choose the singular verb. If the noun is plural, choose the plural form of the verb.
So the sentences below are correct:
Neither Mary nor Jane ...
They are called reported questions with question words.
If there is a question with a question word in Direct Speech, (what, where, why, who, when, how) use this question word in Reported Speech. Again there is no auxiliary verb and the word order is like an affirmative sentence
Peter: “What time did the train leave?”
Peter asked me what time ...
The sentence as written conveys clear information. You could rewrite it as "Caroline broke her leg while skiing" and keep the same meaning.
Both your "when" and my "while" clearly connect the two events (skiing and breaking). If you substitute "and", you name the two events but they are not so clearly connected to each other. "Caroline was skiing and she ...
The car you talked about is that that is going right past us.
is correct because:
- th3e first "that" is a pronoun, referring to car;
- the second "that" is a conjunction, withe the meaning "which":
The car you talked about is that which is going right past us.
It can happen that the first "that" is the conjunction, as in:
I know that that is the car....
Both "was walking" and "walked" can be used in this sort of construction, and the change in meaning is slight. The "Was walking" form (past continuous) suggests an interruption, and thus implies that she was in the process of walking toward the station when she fell. The "walked' form doesn't particularly suggest that, but in the given sentence that is ...
It's not uncommon to use the past continuous tense when describing an action that was in progress, but got interrupted by another action. For instance:
I was reading a book when someone knocked on the door.
My husband broke the lamp while he was changing the light bulb.
In your example, it looks like "she" stumbled and fell while in the process of ...
A passive construction emphasizes the person or thing which recieves the action of the verb, and de-emphasizes or even hides the agent (or actor) the person or thing that perfumes/does the action of the verb.
A passive sentence is normally constructed by placing first the person or thing which receives the action (here "the stalkers" or "the defenders"). ...
"He has broken his own record" sounds proper right after he breaks it.
"He is on his way to breaking his own record" or "He is on pace to break his own record" or even "He should break his own record" would be correct when it looks like he will, but he hasn't.
"He was breaking his own record" also implies he was on his way to breaking his own record, but ...
Both can be correct, but there is a difference in meaning between them. The term "over the period" explicitly distributes the event across the time, while "in the period" allows the event to happen all at once.
Over a period of 10 years, the gambler lost a hundred thousand dollars.
In this sentence the loss will happen throughout the time frame.
"Do you see the cat?"
Asks about right now. Draws attention to the cat in the room.
"Did you see the cat?"
Asks about earlier. If the child is no longer looking at the cat, but you want them recall something or go back and look at it.
"Have you seen the cat?"
Asking if they have noticed the cat or where the cat is now. Usually used when the cat is ...
"With whom are you spending it?" is the "most correct". But in real life, when speaking, one would say "Who are you spending it with?". The word "whom" is very unusual in spoken text nowadays; most people use "who" for all cases, not just the nominative.
From the OED:
Although there are some speakers who still use who and whom according to the rules of ...
"Remembered to post" and "remembered posting" have different meanings. To remember to do something means to not forget to do something important or necessary, for example posting a present to one's mother in good time for her birthday. To remember doing something simply means to recall doing something.
That's because the question is not about someone having an object to you but an action of yours. That is why 'my' is necessary.
Do you mind my sitting here?
Furthermore, "Do you mind if I sit here?" seems okay as well and probably more common. Nevertheless, in my opinion, better (and even politer) is replacing "can" with "may."
May I sit here?
It appears, without proper context, the girl was dreaming and dreaming, she was lost in her dreams. Her dreams were peopled by the grown-ups and filled with their odd doings all along. It is impossible for her to remember a moment when she dreamt something else than these. HERSELF is here for emphasis and is placed at its normal position as an emphatic ...
Because the pronoun "who" is replacing the subject of the sentence, not the object.
What eats mice? (answer Cats eat mice)
What do mice eat? (answer Mice eat seeds and nuts)
With "what" questions, the first type is fairly rare, but it is common enough with "who" questions.
Who told Mary? (answer John told Mary)
Who did Mary tell? (...
I hope you and your class have a great day.
Use "have" as it is, in your sentence, you and your class which refers to your classmates implicitly.
Thus, you have two entities that the main verb (have) refers to, they are:
one individual which are you
and a group of people which are your class
"Again" does not mean repeatedly - it means that something has been repeated once.
I am going to London again.
This doesn't mean that you are repeatedly going to London - just that you are going, and you have been before, at least once.
"Over and over again" idiomatically means repeatedly. We also sometimes say "again and again" to mean ...
I prefer the second usage, "He was, technically, not allowed to view the reports" BUT WITH COMMAS ADDED AS SHOWN. With those two commas added, it becomes clear that officially, this person was not supposed to view the reports, but is in fact viewing the reports anyway.
One problem with "He was not technically allowed to view the reports" is that it could be ...
It is not being used as a synonym for "when or where," it is closer to being a synonym for "if." In this usage, should creates a conditional statement. If there is a fire, then the tenant may be liable for the damage.
The relevant definition from the Oxford English Dictionary with some examples:
Shall/Should Definition 19 c.
In the apodosis of a ...