Yes, it is possible and once valid, but this usage has long gone out of use. If you dig into Middle English and Early Modern English texts you might find many examples of similar constructions. It is considered so obsolete that you probably won't even find this usage in major dictionaries.
The OED has several relevant entries.
To affect or strike with ...
It would be a very unusual construction. As a native English speaker, it sounds highly unusual.
Such sentences are written in the passive voice. "It bothers me" means the thing (it) is doing the action of bothering. For some verbs, such as "bothers" and "amuses," we find it grammatically valid to say they do these actions. It is considered reasonable ...
He turned himself around. [His personal situation improved. Phrasal verb: turn around]
He turned pink or red. [He looked embarrassed] [Turned=become + adjective]
He turned the prince into a frog. [He was a magician]
The prince turned himself into a frog. [same as above, grammar-wise]
turn + oneself + adjective is not a grammatical construct in English ...
In this case, you're using work as an uncountable noun (mass noun). Uncountable nouns are always treated as grammatically singular:
Similar to previous work that identifies...
If you use a countable noun in the plural, then the verb changes:
Similar to previous studies that identify...
It is possible to use work as a countable noun, in the sense of ...
Either could be used and would have a slightly different connotation.
In the example:
"Our test of the phone...",
Using of implies that the test is a generic test which was tried on the phone
In the example:
"Our test for the phone...",
Using for implies that the test was designed specifically for usage on the phone.
Yes, double negatives can be okay. Sentences such as:
There is no job I cannot do.
I don't disagree with you.
I have never not believed you.
are okay and easy to understand.
The "weird" ones:
That won't do you no good
She never goes with nobody
You don't know nothing
Baby, don't hurt me no more
are also okay, but they can be ...
While the phrase
As of 2019, Chrome usage is 50%
is perhaps not strictly incorrect, as it can be interpreted as a compound noun, in my opinion here a possessive form is significantly clearer and better:
As of 2019, Chrome's usage is 50%
Better yet is to recast the sentence, as:
As of 2019, the usage of Chrome is 50%
As of 2019, the usage of ...
It can be decomposed according to rules you’re familiar with.
“People all over the world” means people who are scattered and located all over the world. It could be understood as “People, who are all over the world, ...”.
“People from all over the world” means people who originated from or were born in places all over the world. It could be understood as “...
1 is entirely grammatical, but feels to me a bit old-fashioned somehow. But i can't say just how, so it may be that my perceptions are in error.
Examples 2 and 4 are, I believe, ungrammatical for a lack of agreement between had/have and win/won
3 puts the matter in the present tense, which can be used to discuss the future, so this form seems to me to be ...
In this context, Stephen (the interviewer) is not asking a question. He's telling the actress to explain to the audience about a previous time where she played twins.
Prior to making this statement, Stephen mentions that Julianne's current acting role, is that of a pair of twins. He then mentions that this is not her first time doing so and when Julianne ...
The first sentence is not acceptable standard English; a feeling is something you might experience, feel, anticipate and so on. Be careful here; feeling in this case is a noun, not a present participle. But a feeling is internal to one person - it is not something you can "do" (which would suggest "doing" to another person).
The second sentence is ...
It is, I think, grammatically correct. For comparison, we might say:
"If you are going to study tomorrow, I will see you in the library" or
"if Jane is going to be an actress when she grows up, we may see her on television"
However, your sentence is not the usual colloquial construction, which would run:
"If the weather is nice tomorrow, we'll have a ...
The sentence is grammatically correct.
This was the long way, which we had to go.
As written, the clause is non-restrictive or non-defining, because it is separated by a comma and uses the relative pronoun "which."
The clause "which we had to go" is a relative clause, acting as an adjective phrase to the antecedent noun phrase "the long way." The ...
Both forms are perfectly correct, and neither is seriously ambiguous. Any grammar text that claims that either is "wrong" is itself seriously wrong.
The comment by ЯegDwight suggests that the form without "that" is ambiguous in that one cannot tell then if Joan's slow pace is intended to allow the children to keep up, or merely has that as an unintended ...