It's wrong. This is deliberate on the part of the game designers. Peons are not known for being highly educated or well-spoken.
However, babies sometimes speak this way before they learn the difference between objective pronouns (me) and subjective pronouns (I). For that reason, incorrect constructions like "me (verb)" or "me (adjective)" are associated ...
Imagine a man who was raised in the jungle by animals ever since he was a child. He was not taught English since animals don't speak English. He has only recently met his first human, and is currently being exposed to speaking English (or any civilised language, for that matter) Which statement would make more sense to come from him, in this context:
That passage is part of a litany describing the variety of things that were carried by American soldiers in the Vietnam war. I don't think you can definitely determine the scope of the adjectives in that list unless you have knowledge of the actual armaments described.
I think it should be read by separating it by the "and"s, and considering each adjective ...
You’re right about the tense of the second sentence, Joseph; it isn’t correct. If you’re going for present tense — as in ‘she would become happy if you sent this box of chocolate to her now’ — it should be:
She would be happy if you sent her this box of chocolate.
If you used ‘send’, it would become future tense and you would have to use ‘will’ instead ...
1 I tried to run the computer program, but it didn't work.
This is probably what you want and is the simplest form.
2 I was trying to run the computer program, but it didn't work.
The implication here is that you tried running it over a period of time (maybe you made several attempts) and then stopped, or you tried and you were interrupted (you tried ...
If you use puts, that is a tensed verb, and has to be interpreted as parallel with might:
which [might result in them losing money] and [puts their privacy at risk].
so it is stating that it does put their privacy at risk. This is probably not what you intended.
If you use put, then it is not a tensed verb, so it must be inside the scope of "might":
"Of" and "on" can both be used, but they have slightly different meanings and usage:
First, when asking people for ideas, it is common to say "Do you have an idea of (something)", but usually when using "on" it is more common to say "Do you have any ideas on (something)".
"an idea of (something)" means that the idea is an answer to the question "what is (...
To "exhaust", as used here, means to use up, to use all that is available. Like you might say, "Buying a new car exhausted all the money in my bank account."
So the writer is saying that people have some knowledge of psychic phenomena, but this knowledge is limited and incomplete, so that understanding whatever magic these sisters did goes beyond our ...
It is a construction in literary and formal English, a pattern borrowed from Latin, where it is referred to as "accusative and infinitive". I don't know any other name for it in English.
Not many people would use it in ordinary conversation.
That sentence is grammatically correct, as doping is used as a verbal noun/gerund.
You probably have seen many examples of these without realising:
I like running to keep fit.
My hearing isn't as good as it used to be.
Driving can be stressful.
That being said, the sentence does sound a bit odd. Personally I would shorten it to just:
Using "Not only" instead of "only" would give the sentence a very different meaning.
If it were "Not only", it would mean that he got both a small practice bike AND a fucking Harley-Davidson.
"Only" by itself is used to distinguish and highlight the contrast between the two characters - one got a small practice bike, and one got a fucking Harley. Here it ...
In the first sentence, the lack of a plural could emphasise that many of the shipyard workers are likely to lose their own livelihood.
In the second, the plural could emphasise that many shipyard workers may lose all of their livelihoods, their collective livelihood, the one they share.
However, semantically, I don’t think it makes a difference, at least ...
I might understand this as a strange transitive use of the word bark, meaning "Make the dog bark"
I could understand this in poetry as two incomplete sentences, an interjection, and a noun. The interjection is "Bark!" and the noun is "The dogs".
It sort of works as a "stream of consciousness". In this style the author tries to express everything that goes ...
We can use 'otherwise' as an adverb meaning "except for what has just been referred to". This is not a temporary rupture in an equilibrium which would be stable except for that (the rupture).
Otherwise (Cambridge Dictionary)
The sentence as it is could be correct, but it needs more context to know. Here is a context where that sentence could fit:
A: "If there were a single thing that could completely upset the current detente, what would it be?."
B: "It would be a Hamas rocket heading over onto southern Israel."
Your version uses a relative clause, and the original version ...
"I'm amazed by how you did this." - a good choice.
not as good.
Better yet: "I am amazed at how you did this."
The sequence "by how" isn't a construction. The "by" actually is attached to "amazed".
So, you can be "amazed by" many things, and one of them is "how you did this".
you are not wrong at all!
the main usage of "when to do something" , is focused on time.
so the sentence you have is technically correct but may not get to the meaning of what you want to say.
Your original sentence:
"She is homesick and uncertain when to go back to her home country."
Literally means: "She is homesick and uncertain what TIME to back to ...
"Children" is already a plural noun so saying "childrens" would make no sense in English. In order to talk about all of the children while also indicating that they fall into different categories, you would have to refer to them as different types, sorts, varieties, kinds, etc. of children. For example, "Both kinds of children are ..."
It’s not about being polite, and it’s definitely not to make it easier on translators; if anyone tried to do that with English, we’d probably end up doing away with whole parts of the language!
The ‘would’ in that sentence is showing that it’s a possible thing that they could do if they chose to, if they were willing to:
...20 percent of heart disease ...
The second is correct. "haven't" normally modifies only the closest phrase, not both phrases in the conjunction.
You can change this by adding "both":
Don't give any ranks to people who haven't both met the requirements and made a ticket.
That groups the conjunction into a single item.
You can also enumerate them:
Don't give any ranks to people who ...
No. "It would be" doesn't go too well with the sentence since "would be" is past tense and "heading" is future tense. If you're trying to ho for past tense, try "It would be a Hamas rocket that headed over to southern Isreal." If you want future tense try "A Hamas rocket is heading to southern Israel." Also the word "towards" goes better in the sentence. "A ...
I feel “from” conveys the origin or cause of the illness and “with” conveys the actual illness.
I would say “I have a virus” and “I’m “sick with a virus“ rather than “I’m sick from a virus.”
I‘m sore from working out. (Cause/origin of problem)
I’m sore with working out. (Test shows it doesn’t work)
I suppose ‘sick from’ has more of an implication that it’s badly affecting the person who has contracted it; it says that the person has gotten sick from it; they’ve contracted the disease and therefore become affected by it; they’re sick — meaning ‘feeling bad’ — from coronavirus. This gives a bit of an implication that they’ve been badly affected by the ...
When you use nouns as modifiers, this is called using them attributively.
X Y attributively associates X attributes of X with Y. The association is typically not strong enough to say X is origin/creator of Y.
Chicken soup - soup has chicken, but a chicken didn't create it..
Face mask - the mask is for your face, but your face didn't create it.
No, "helped" is not the "main verb"--this is not a grammatically correct sentence so we cannot discuss "main verbs." I will show three different ways you can write the same thing, and discuss whether or not we need commas and why/why not.
I think you want to say:
I saw her crying. That helped me understand the matter.
You don't need ...
The logical subject may be books, but in English the subject is what.
What is usually singular, unless it is asking a question about several separate things, eg "What are the reasons for that". As a fused relative pronoun (which is what it is here) it is always singular.
The fact that its logical antecedent is plural is irrelevant. The verb keeps is ...
The “only” in this sentence can mean “but”. It’s trying to explain how she’s like the guy, but with one difference. Only can be replaced with “but” when there is just one thing that is being talked about.
Those two sentences are saying different things.
Not only did he get a small practice bike...
Means he did get a small practice bike... [and something else about that].
Only, he didn't get a small practice bike He bought a fucking
Harley-Davidson, despite having never rode a bike.
Means he didn't buy a small practice bike, he bought a Harley ...
Hinduism is the name of the religion. A person is not a religion.
You don't say "He is a Hinduism".
You do say "Hinduism is common in India".
You do say "He believes in Hinduism".
A person who believes in Hinduism is called a Hindu.
You do say "He is a Hindu."
You do say "Around 90% of the population are Hindus".