There's a bit of a shift in what the pronouns are referring to over the course of the sentence (exacerbated by the fact that the quote appears to have been cut in an awkward spot) that makes it harder to interpret.
Simplified, the sentence goes:
I don't know how you could look at [the situation] and not say that it [the bureau/the leadership] is a ...
First, you almost certainly mean that you are "confused" rather than "confusing."
Your proposed sentence is grammatical, but it is not quite idiomatic U.S. English.
I am proud of him for being a student in my school and being a resident of my area
would be better, but it still sounds quite wordy and stilted.
I am proud of him for being a student in ...
The information between the pair of commas is nonrestrictive. That's why it is being set off as it is.
This is the essential sentence:
The truth is that after hospitals are hit, our houses have become hospitals.
Since the additional information is not restricting the sentence, it is inserted between a pair of parenthetical commas. It could also be ...
This use of commas is actually technically correct. It is based on the general principle that when you have two independent clauses connected by a conjunction (in this case "and"), there should also be a comma, so when you combine:
after hospitals are hit
in areas like this where there is just one hospital
after hospitals are hit, ...
Only a small difference. Consider using a simpler adjective and noun "red" and "cat".
Are both [of them] red cats?
This asks both about the colour and the species. The answer could be "No, they are red dogs" or "No, they are black cats". (or "Yes, they are")
Are both cats red?
This assumes they are cats, and asks only about the colour. The answer ...
Yes, both are grammatical. We are dealing with ellipsis.
Both examples are viable examples
can be made more compact without loss of sense by
Both examples are viable
Both are viable examples
The first form of ellipsis is turned into a question
Are both examples viable?
The second form is turned into a question
Are both viable ...
The word late, doesn't mean "till a later time." More accurately, it means "after the desired time."
"The plane's depature is late" is no guarantee it will leave at a later time. It just means "The plane's departure is after the desired time."
Using your examples
I worked past the desired time at work today.
He stayed up past the desired time ...
Yes you can, although this grammar has a fairly specific usage. Ordinarily it expresses a perceived reason for something, for example:
These documents must have been written by you, (because ...)
These documents must have been prepared by someone else (because ...)
This can also be used to describe a situation:
"She must have come here before us ...
"I wanted to get my parents to sign on the paper" may be grammatical but sounds a bit weird. I prefer "I wanted to get my parents to sign the paper."
"She wanted to have you sit on chair" is missing an article. But "she wanted to have you sit on the chair" sounds fine to me.
"She wanted you to sit on the chair" also sounds fine.
"She wanted to have you ...
"I wanted to have you sit on the chair"
"I wanted to get you to sit on the chair"
are for all intents and purposes identical in meaning, and both are grammatically correct. Both are in common use, although they're slightly less formal than using other, more specific verbs (like "I wanted you to sit").
No, this doesn't make sense.
She wanted to have you sat on the chair
Here we can see the intent of the sentence is to say that she wanted you to be in your chair, in the present tense and as such you should not use sat.
The phrase you would be looking for is
She wanted you to sit on the chair
The reason is simply because sat is the past tense and ...
To answer the question with additional comments made in comments.
The reason why
"I wanted to get my parents to sign on the paper".
Makes sense while
"she wanted to have you sit on chair"
Does not is because of the following:
When talking about wanting something, you have to refer to it in the present or in the future tense, which you have done so ...
Your sentence would perhaps be grammatical if it contained an article before "chair."
The sentence, however, is not at all idiomatic, at least not in U.S. English, and probably is not technically grammatical. The purpose of a causative verb is to indicate that A caused B to perform some act.
She made (had) you sit in a chair.
That sentence is idiomatic. ...
There are two parts of the grammar here that might be confusing: "agree to" and "caretaker prime minister".
agree to a <noun>
Here's a simpler sentence with "agree to a <noun>":
Tom Jeffords persuaded Cochise to agree to a meeting with General Gordon Granger in September 1871. The meeting was held near Victorio's favorite camp site, Ojo Caliente. (...
It's not really modifying anything, but it is the other half of the two-part phrase with the subject "members of the UK Parliament". We can rephrase:
Even if members of the UK Parliament [do various things], Johnson would not step down.
Personally I find the use of "would" to be odd. Instead I prefer "will", because this is a fairly definite future ...
The use of "having had" may be correct. However the sentence contains multiple other errors. I think you meant something like
Having had him sit on a chair, he started to tell a story.
This would appear to be a dangling participle. The subject of the main sentence is "He", this is also the implied subject of the participle phrase. But that doesn't make ...
_Having had him sit on a chair, he started telling a story.
People are divided over whether or not that is acceptable. Some call it a "dangling participle construction", and object to it because the subject of the participle having is clearly not the same as the subject of the main clause he.
Other people use constructions like this without any problem.
Sentences can start with "At". However, the choice of preposition seems wrong in this example. You would normally say "In this paper..."
At five o'clock, tea was served in the conservatory.
At implies a time or location. In implies contained within the body of this work
In this paper, we analyse the consumption of infusions of Camellia Sinensis among ...
The two suggested sentences:
Always watch the kids out
Always watch out for the kids.
do not convey the same meaning. Sentence 1 may be technically valid grammatically, but it is sufficiently unusual that most fluent speakers would simply think it was an error. Sentence 2 is valid and normal, but also ambiguous.
Sentence 2 would most likely ...
I would say this as it is more natural:
A: I don't know their price separately but the price put together cost us $30.
You are referring to the price put together therefore it is appropriate to add the word price otherwise it doesn’t fully make sense as to what you’re describing.
The preposition from in this adverbial clause must be followed by a single date (the date when a multiple-day timespan starts). If you also want to specify the end date of the range (which is syntactically optional), this must be preceded by the preposition to. But it's relatively "unusual" to specify a span of just two consecutive dates as from [StartDate] ...
You're correct that it's a "journey by train". This is certainly confusing, since a "journey on foot" would be a journey taken by walking; I believe "on foot" is the only mode of transport that uses "on".
"For the tomorrow morning" is also incorrect. It's simply "for tomorrow morning". Generally, omit "the" in this phrase if the specified time is ...
It isn't quite grammatical. Meaning what we did 600 years ago might repeat itself is not a perfect sentence. It seems to need a main verb. For that reason That means is much better.
That means what we did 600 years ago might repeat itself.
It would flow even better if you used a colon, or perhaps just a comma, before meaning, and said 'which means'.
Yes and Yes
In this construction, the word "meaning" has exactly the same meaning as the two-word phrase "that means". It expands on and explains the previous text.
However, the quoted example using "meaning" is grammatical, and is a common and natural construction. There is no grammatical reason to avoid it. The choice is purely one of style.
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 ...
People will feel boring if advertisements give information only. This is not correct.
"Boring" is an adjective and should therefore only be used to describe a noun. If you say "people feel boring" then you are literally saying that these people do not feel good about themselves; they feel that they do not offer enough entertainment to others, and they are ...
While one can think of a question as being derived from a statement, a native sp3aker does not typically first construct a statement and then transform it into a question. Similarly, while a question like your original example:
What value of T is just small enough to make the bulb light?
can be thought of as being an elided form, constructions of the ...
Non-native speakers often use used to instead of the simple past thinking that only used to is used to talk about past habits which are no longer in use.
Your sentences may be grammatically correct but no native speaker uses used to twice in a sentence.
They might say :
When I was in college, I played volleyball.
They may not differ in meaning.
The last sentence should be:
Are you not going to study to night?
The question tags are usually contractions.
In speech we say Aren' t you going instead of Are you not going?
You're asking which of these is correct:
- types of trees
- the types of trees
- types of the trees
- the types of the trees
The answer depends on context, as all of these could be used in different contexts. The thing to note is that whenever you bring in the definite article "the" you are referring either to one specific thing, or a specific group.
The noun subjects in your example full-form sentences are in the wrong location. A native English speaker would never say "is not it?", but rather "is it not?". The same goes for example 2 where the correct form would be "Are you not...."
The corrected subject-verb full-form versions can be a little awkward (when placed at the end of a sentence, this phrase ...
"Some of Mr. Trump’s own allies fear the failure to follow through was taken by Iran as a sign of weakness."
It is grammatically correct as far as I can tell, however it does not read very nicely. As I read it, I had to re-read the sentence before I fully understood what was trying to be conveyed. It would be better to write:
Some of Mr. Trump's own ...
This is not a question of grammar (The implicit rules that govern how words get put together in a language) but a question of meaning. There are grammatical sentences that have no meaning at all, such as Chomsky's example "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
You are right that "decide which one is equal" doesn't have a clear meaning as equality ...
Your first example is correct:
I don't know what graph theory is.
It is wrong to say "I don't know what is graph theory.", although it is such a common mistake with non-native speakers that you will see it quite frequently.
In general I believe the order is reversed when the unknown is the object - in other words the verb and the known noun would be in ...
The grammar of that sentence is OK. Its meaning is a little hard to understand, especially without the rest of the context, because it is pretty vague, and full of non-specific vocabulary words.
The words following "so that":
"it can meet the business requirement a given solution is designed to
are a clause defining the way that big data must ...
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 ...
"Replace" is, as you say, a transitive verb, and therefore can be used in the passive:
A replaces B
B is replaced by A.
It can also be used as a causative verb:
C replaces B with A (eg My boss wants to replace me with a machine!)
B is replaced by C with A. (eg That poster is being replaced by the creative director, with this new one. A ...