... that Theresa May spent time getting in [the political declaration].
Theresa May was the leader of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister of UK before being succeeded by Boris Johnson.
During the time Ms. May was in power, she "expended huge amounts of political capital" putting some things (e.g., trade deal promises or regulations - see the ...
It sounds fine to me. In some cases, using present perfect as you did may sound a bit more formal than using past simple even, which is quite desireable in such a work environment.
I have fixed this problem many times
I'd understand this as you've done it many times before already and may do it more in the future.
I have talked ...
We have decided .....
It is grammatical, but, as R Sole said, wordy. Moreover, I doubt it says what you mean. I suspect that you want to say that you are using "visibility" in a scientific sense, that "visibility" is decreasing, and that pollution is one cause of the decrease. The proposition that "visibility" is decreasing due to pollution may be implied, but it is not ...
Your last example could be interpreted as: there are no more students playing cricket, either because playing cricket has been prohibited or the cricket-playing students have left. I think you are looking for: no more playing cricket for(the)students or no more playing cricket for you (your second example).
It is not a sentence. It is a noun phrase - the head is the noun "survivors", and it is post-modified by a participial clause "clinging to a raft".
It can be used independent in the same way that any noun phrase can be used independent, eg in answer to a question:
What does this picture show? Survivors clinging to a raft.
But it does not narrate ...
Simple past can always be used with a time expression.
He worked as a doctor when I met him.
I lived there five years ago.
Past continuous can also have a time phrase:
I was living there when the war started
The "Used to" pattern is not usually used with a time expression. We tend to use "used to" with unspecified time in the past. You can use ...
Both versions mean the same thing:
I learn a lot while talking to someone
I learn a lot as a result of talking to someone.
You are free to use either without risk of it sounding strange and your meaning will be perfectly understood.
They seem to me to be idioms that have the same meaning but are used in slightly different situations.
"On mind" is used in expressions such as "What's on your mind?" or "I've got you on my mind."
On the other hand, "in mind" is used in "Did you have something in mind?" or "I'll keep you in mind."
Based on these examples, "on mind" seems to be used ...
Hopefully you are aware of the most basic meanings of "in" and "on".
"In" - means that something is between, within, or inside other things.
"On" - means that something is atop of something else.
When used in connection with a timeline, as a general rule we say "in" to refer to something that happened between other events, and "on" to refer to something ...
"There is no commentary there". The first "there" is part of a phrase "there was"; the second "there" is referring to a script. I looked in the kitchen; there was no bread there.
A bigger quote might help. There was no commentary (social comment, a trademark of 'The Simpsons') there (in the script Harvey Fierstein is talking about, which had been suggested ...
In this sentence, the way in which "there" is used is different both times.
"There is no commentary there".
The first "there" is is referring to the commentary in question.
The second "there" is talking about the general situation; the content of the sentence before.
So no, there isn't any specific rule here, it's just what the writer is trying to ...
I'd say it's an adverbial "participial phrase" modifying the verb use (specifying how, the way we use the word "kite").
Note that idiomatically, most native speaker would say we use the word to mean a kind of bird.
Even though you've only heard it spoken, I'm sure you didn't hear a pause between "word" and "meaning" - in which case there's no comma (since ...
I agree that there is nothing wrong grammatically with any of
This already shows
This itself shows
This itself already shows
This in(by) itself shows
This in(by) itself already shows
It is a matter of style which to use. Personally, I find the "This by itself shows" to be a concise and clear way to emphasize that ...
From a former ESL student - the problem is that the rule cited in the question is only applicable to answering questions. It is not applicable to conversations in general.
"Did you forget so-and-so?" - "No, I did not"
"Please do not forget so-and-so" - "No, I will not"
"Make somebody something" has two quite different meanings:
Create the something for the somebody (eg "Make me a sandwich")
Cause the somebody to become the something (eg "Make me a tennis-player").
Very occasionally there could be ambiguity between these, but in most cases the meaning is clear depending on whether the "something" is something that a ...
It would also be polite to thank the first speaker for the reminder.
"I won't forget, thanks for reminding me"
I could only see a native speaker saying, "I don't" with a testy, negative connotation meaning "You don't have to remind me, I never forget things like that" but even then it would be more typical to say "I never do"
Your example uses the negative. Let's start with a positive version and go from there.
Remember to bring the washing powder!
This is an order (the imperative), and the verbs "to remember" and "to forget" imply the future in an order:
Remember to bring the washing powder [when you come over later]!
So the response must be about the future as well. Two ...
In English, 'don't X' has an implied future to it. In your example, we get something like "Do not forget to buy washing powder when you go out shopping in the future."
You would then respond with (literally): "Okay, I will not forget washing powder when I go out shopping."
Because you both understand the context that you are talking about "buying washing ...
In your example the responses:
"Okay, I won't."
"Don't worry, I won't."
are all colloquial and correct.
"I don't" sounds odd and is incorrect.
"I will not" is technically correct but sounds stilted and a native speaker would never use it in this situation.
The verb "remember" is in the "bare infinitive" form, which is "remember". The structure is
(subject) [help] (someone) (bare infinitive)
So we could have
I helped her play tennis.
It will help them be good
She helps her mum wash the clothes
In each case the finite verb is "help" and the other verb (play/be/wash) is a bare infinitive.
This is not actually a full sentence, because there is no verb. The whole thing could be used as a compound object phrase. For instance
That smell of oil and candles and that light from a distant window and him on his knees, mumbling, are the only things I remember from that night.
Or, it could be used as a compound subject by changing the case of the ...
I would think it more natural to have said :
... the equipment used is not known to be in the Houthis’ arsenal.”
"Unknown to" is indeed usually followed by a pronoun, noun, or noun phrase indicating the person, group or entity (or personified thing) that does not know the subject of the verb.
Criminal libel is unknown to US law.
But Turkish was ...