if every person had a healthy family relationship, this would yield a positive impact not only on every person, but also on communities as a whole.
if every person had a healthy family relationship, this would yield a positive impact not only on every person, but also on a community as a whole.
are both grammatically correct, however
if every ...
No. People gathered round is perfectly grammatical.
Gathered here is an adjective, not a passive participle. (You can see this because there is no answer to the question "who were they gathered by?")
I admit that it seems a bit anomalous that the adjective is derived from the past participle but does not have a passive meaning (unlike adjectives like "...
They are both grammatical and appropriate, but with different meanings.
In your second example, the focus is on only one community, with the potential implication that other communities might not have similar benefits.
In contrast, in your first example, the benefits apply generally to communities:
basic communities, made of individuals and families;
You're talking about a moment in the future where an event will have already come to pass. You are NOT talking about the moment in the future when the event happens. So "...would have become..." is correct. You can use either "...would have become..." or "...will have become...".
Here are some more idiomatic expressions:
Never give up, whatever hardships you face.
Never lose hope, whatever hardships you face.
Never give up on your dreams, whatever hardships you may face.
Never give up hope, whatever hardships you face.
While the original sentences you mentioned make sense, they don't sound like the most standard English.
Q: Will she ever find out?
A: She never will.
Suggested change: "She will never."
Such a phrase is not used, at least as a stand-alone entity.
However, it can be applied in a longer expression: "She will never watch that movie."
The rule seems to be that "never" should precede the verb which it modifies. "never find out" "never ...
All the grammar points presented are fine.
But in this case, please note that "king of the jungle" is a set phrase and therefore does not need an article, as in:
She is queen for the day. [an old TV show]. Please note though: It is not a mistake to say: The lion is the king of the jungle. or: Lions are the kings of the jungle. But you lose the edginess of ...
When I finished University
In this case, the past simple tense is used so you are talking about when you finished univeristy (when you were younger)
When I finish University
You are talking about a future action that will occur.
When I have finished University
The same- you are talking about a future action that will occur. This uses the perfect tense.
When I finished University
This is used to talk about the past, since you're using the past tense: "finished"
When I finish University
This can be used to talk about a planned future.
Example: "When I finish University, I'll move out."
This means I will move out when (usually the moment) I finish University.
When I have finished university
The two sentences have the same literal meaning, but may intend a slight difference in nuance. The use of the past perfect emphasizes the sequence of events and at least suggests a causal relationship.
You do not need to use the past perfect to indicate the sequence of past actions if that sequence is clear from other means such as use of "after" or "before....
This use of "through" with a date, meaning "up to and including" that date, is very common and wholly natural in US English. I gather it is less common in UK English.
I will be on vacation through Thursday.
He will be in a meeting through 2 pm.
The store will be open through the 21st.
The play will run though October 15th.
I think the main thing you are trying to understand better is getting obscured by the way you're using "the fact that." Let me rephrase your question, to focus on what I think you are asking:
He knew that I was trying to tell him he is wrong.
He knew that I was trying to tell him he was wrong.
Are these both possible?
The answer is yes, ...
The action or movement of a runner
We use do to talk about actions in general, when we do not specify exactly what the action is and According to Cambridge Dictionary do can also be used to avoid repeating a verb or verb phrase:
She runs much faster than he does.
I am running faster than you do
is acceptable usage.
It's an excellent question, and I think you have the right idea.
I think I would word it this way:
I am running faster than you run!
instead of saying:
I am running faster than you do!
(I think your version is grammatical for the situation you describe; however, it's such an odd sentence that I think run sounds better than the more vague do.)
Shinning as lucifer, the morning star in the dawn, showing a beauty
that is not God's. — That which appears within grasp.
Could I say only which ("which appears within grasp")?
Yes, you can!
"That" here is a stylish directive to the morning star being within the grasp.
Used to refer to a person, object, idea, etc. that is separated from the ...
This is mostly to do with the subcategorisation frames of fact - the particular kinds of complements it can take.
Fact can take either:
A finite clause introduced by that: "the fact that he was wrong"
A (non-finite) gerund clause introduced by of: "the fact of his/him* being wrong"
Your 1. is ungrammatical.
Your 2. is probably grammatical, but ...
If you wrote this as a sentence instead of a question, it would be:
This has to be done today.
In order to turn this into a question, first you have to use do-support. In other words, you have to change "has" to "does have."
This does have to be done today.
Finally, you have to move "does" to the beginning and add a question mark.
Does this have ...
'Turn to' can have several different meanings.
To turn to (drugs/alcoholism): You start taking drugs or become an alcoholic. "He has turned to drugs to cope with his depression"
Turn to (+ verb): Physically turning your body. "I turned to see my sister standing there"
Turn to: Changing an idea or moral. "He has turned to see religion in a different way".
Historically, many of the modals are in pairs, present and past: will and would; can and could; shall and should; may and might.
But in modern English, these relationships are much weaker, and some have disappered for most people, as the formally past forms have acquired their own separate meanings. (Particularly might as the past of may).
So in ...
Original: This scar was the only hint of Harry’s very mysterious past, of the reason he had been left on the Dursleys’ doorstep eleven years before.
I am going to write down what I understand from this.
Harry's scar signified two things: (a) his very mysterious past and (b) the reason he had been left on the doorstep eleven years before.
The scar was the ...
The short answer is that "the work is done" always means "completed".
A point for consideration is what "the work" actually refers to. For example, any job can be broken down into tasks, and "the work" could refer to the entire job or just a task. Work can also be ongoing, so you could just mean your work for the day, and it will begin again tomorrow. ...
According to the Cambridge Dictionary
done adjective [after verb]
If something is done, or you are done with it, it is finished, or you
have finished doing, using it, etc.
If it's done then it's finished. If the work is still in progress, it's not done yet.
I would have written it as "John asked me if I _ knew _ if Tom plays cricket." but it is a fairly tiny difference, and not one that many people would pick up on.
Since 'asked' is past tense, know/knew should be past tense too. Apart from that, it is perfectly normal usage.
I think that while this chart will in many cases produce a correct answer, there are edge cases it does not catch. For example, in country names, until 1870 (Bismark's unification) the country now known as Germany was normally called "The Germanies". Cases such as "The Holy Land" do not seem properly handled. It also doesn't seem to catch when a plural ...
Just can mean ‘recently’ or ‘a very short time before or after speaking’.
We often use the present perfect or past perfect with this meaning of just when we refer to a short time before the moment of speaking:
The option C is not correct because it's present perfect tense but in the sentence it's talk about the past.
For the option B we can not use past perfect tense for both sentences. To use past perfect there should be an action was completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the past before something else happened.
The answer is A because Bessie ...
So...That expresses a cause and effect. You can not use this structure without that.
It's structure is: So + adjective/adverb + that
We use so…that (degree adverb) to create a comparison between two things. It is used to underline an action to show that something leads to certain results.
Here you can find a full explanation of the use of So ... that: ...
At the least you should not use "year" in the way you have; "longest year" is confusing as it suggests that the length of a year changes substantially. A possible alternative would be:
"to the longest period with reliable documentary data"
Some re-structuring of your sentence might make your meaning more explicit, though. For example:
"Previous analyses ...
The main problem with parenthetical expressions is that, if they are confusing or too long, they only distract from the point you are trying to make. You want the reader to return to the main point and remember how the sentence started. Sentences with parenthesis should also make completely grammatical sense if you removed the parenthetical expression.
If I ...
There's nothing incorrect or ungrammatical in your writing--at least in Standard American English.
In British English, there is often a stronger expectation to use the perfect aspects in contexts where there is an open choice for Americans.
Whether your choices are the best in terms of style is another question.
Here is just one alternative that I ...
The question is how "simply" affects the sentence.
He simply told her that he worked for the Corporation.
This is vaguely similar to "He only told her" and "He merely told her".
In this case, "simply" is referring to (all) his actions, and among (all) these actions he simply only did one thing: "He told her". Nothing else.
He told her that he ...
The main problem lies with the adverb over. And according to Cambridge Dictionary, be over is an adjective.
We were so late that, when we got to the cinema, the film was over.
If we look at a good online dictionary such as Cambridge, we see the following definition
over adverb (FINISHED)
B1 [level of difficulty]
(especially of an event) ...
Is: Third person singular present of be.
Does: Third person singular present of do.
Has: Third person singular present of have
All three of them have different meanings.
The summer is not over
is the only sentence that makes grammatical sense
The summer does not finish
means that the summer does not end.
The summer has not finished
means it's ...
Out of your three sentences :
1.The summer is not over
2.The Summerdoes not over
3.The summer has not over
In all the sentences over is an adjective meaning finished
Only sentence1 is grammatically correct.
The 3rd sentence should be The Summer has not been over
The first sententence means the summer is not ended .
The second sentence looks odd.It ...
For meaning 5 in the Oxford learner's dictionary, it's fine to use it with the present continuous as you did in all of your examples, and Maulik V did in his. This is because present continuous relates to what happened in the recent past, is still happening now, and is expected to happen in the near future.
If you use it with a future tense, just has ...
I find absolutely no problem in using just in those contexts. In fact, nowhere I have come across any rule that you cannot use just for near future.
To quote from MM:
Reports are just arriving about the earthquake in Mexico.
In Cambridge dictionary one of many meanings of "come" is "to happen".
Macmillan dictionary defines "come of [something]" as "to be the result of something".
In your case, "what will come of the money" essentially means what will happen as a result of getting the money, "what will happen because of the money, or what will the money lead to" (as discussed ...
It's perfectly correct. The "may have + verb (past tense)" implies a possibility of an event in the past which probably cannot be acknowledged to have really happened since none can say for sure if it really did happen or not.
Normally "to follow" means "to go after" and is most often used in exactly this context, but there can be other cases of course. Mostly in phrases like "Hey, follow me everyone" or "Will you please follow me to the reception?" we mean "come after/to go after/to proceed after".
"to follow after" is most commonly used in the meanings of "to take the place of/...
Both sentences make sense, and I don't think that the first sentence is too wordy, especially when used in the right context.
If for some reason this were enough for the person you're talking to, but not enough for a different person to attain expert proficiency in guitar, then adding 'for you' would emphasize that fact.
This is enough for you to attain ...
Either can be right depending on when (in relation to the confusion) the not-thinking-carefully occurred. If you really read them with picky, picky attention, the two sentences have slightly different meanings.
The reason that the speaker got a little confused has a different time frame for each of them.
1) I got a little confused because I didn't think ...