Merriam-Webster has already picked up this usage:
[intransitive verb]: to yield to erasure
There are a smallish number of examples on the internet, for instance
The new whiteboard erases flawlessly. The markers from my original purchase erased flawlessly on the replacement board as well,
[Amazon product review]
Wiktionary also includes erase in ...
No, it's not right.
The verb add does not take an indirect object the way give does.
You can give a person a present.
You cannot add ✳a list an item.
That's because give is a ditransitive verb (one with two different objects as core syntactic arguments) that allows for dative
alternation with the recipient
in the syntactic slot reserved for the verb's ...
Under the table is the place to look.
Yes: the PP "under the table" is the subject here.
This can be demonstrated by the possibility of having an interrogative tag, "isn't it?", where "it" is anaphoric to "under the table" , showing that the latter is subject.
The basic interrogative test for subjects also proves it'...
There are many kinds of "accidents". A "car" accident is just one of them. So it would be unnatural to use "the car" right off the bat.
In fact, even if the first sentence was about a "car" accident, it would still be awkward to use "the car" in the second sentence:
I saw a car accident this morning. ??The ...
For me, that is an inversion, which is great English, by the way.
It is an inversion of the usual order used for effect.
The place to look is under the table.
With the bare form of be, it's easy, usually.
For me, the subject is the phrase The place to look and under the table is just a prepositional phrase, an adjunct of location. And this is basically a ...
I can imagine a situation where the reporter could say:
I was talking about you for 2 years, when you decided to show up again.
Certainly, many would argue that the correct tense would be I had been talking, but in spoken language, you will come across such uses. If the focus is the present moment, however, the reporter should have said:
I have been ...
Regardless of grammar, it doesn't make logical sense. Then has to refer to a specific time.
I last checked at five o'clock, and he hadn't arrived by then.
...but we can say
When I was last there, he hadn't arrived yet/ he still hadn't arrived.
morning - noun used attributively, i.e. operating as an adjective
rain - noun "the morning rain" = the rain in the morning
clouds (verb) - to cloud - to obscure or cover with mist or to cause the misting or obscuring of something.) Probably a reference to the condensation that appears on the inside of a window pane when rain falls on it.
up - ...
It is not well worded.
Take the sentence: "Do not catch and eat blue crabs." It is correct, but it might be taken to mean that only the combination is prohibited - and so you are permitted to catch them without eating them or to eat them without catching them.
Similarly, "Do not eat, catch and buy blue crabs" is badly worded. Your ...
Yes, that's perfectly good, though it would be more natural with or rathr than and: your sentence suggests that it is telling you not to do all three things, rather than not to do any of the three things.
Almost all contexts that accept a verb will accept two or more coordinated verbs in the corresponding form:
I will wait and ask him.
He is eating and ...
A really good question, Kamil - the joys of English!
Version 1 is perhaps more logical because the 'but' serves as a red flag to the reader.
That said, one would really use 'but' if the second clause challenges the first clause. In this case it doesn't.
A mother tongue English speaker is more likely to switch the two qualifying classes around, so that they'...
The is a determiner - basically a demonstrative adjective - the means "that exact/particular noun of which we (speaker and listener) are [now] aware.”
(The is similar to “that” - in fact it is a form of the Old English “that” and often “that” can be used in place of the.)
The is used
(i) where the noun is well known to everyone:
"The moon is ...
The word "let" has multiple definitions, two of which are:
1 (with object and infinitive) Not prevent or forbid; allow.
3 British (with object) Allow someone to have the use of (a room or property) in return for regular payments.
In your example, the intended usage is likely to be definition 1. Note that "let" is used ...