By ducking (meaning to crouch down), they are running lower than they would be when running in a normal position. "Lower" is used to compare the ducking run to a normal run. Either could work and I would say they could be interchangeable in this instance.
On calculating my annual carbon footprint recently [past],
I realized x or I have realized x.
The first is when you mean a single point in time in the past.
The second shows it was in the past, and you don't say when at the time of speaking in the present.
On calculating my annual carbon footprint recently, i realized how inadequate those efforts are.
This is correct. Rationale:
A. "Efforts" is being used abstractly. It's being used in the sense of "things that can be attempted" rather than "instance where X was attempted."
This means the "efforts" exist now and using present tense to describe them is OK.
The efforts are inadequate is an universal truth. It is a fact. The efforts will not help to improve the state of the climate. More drastic measures are needed.
The earth rotates around the sun is another universal truth. Universal truths are expressed in present simple tense.
The word data can be taken as either singular or plural. Depending on how you interpret it, the subject and verb need to be in agreement.
You can't mix them inconsistently as in the question:
✘ The data, whether it be Xs or Ys, are collected from users.
Depending on your interpretation, either of these is correct:
✔ The data, whether it be Xs or Ys,...
I can't easily explain why the sentence is poor, but I would write it is as
Water vapour is its gaseous state formed by boiling at 100 degrees.
This also avoids using the word "water" twice in proximity.
However the sentence is scientifically incorrect. Water vapour is created naturally from water, the process of evaporation - turning from liquid into ...
As your sentences indicate, would be written is a passive construction whose subject is a letter. And would have written is in the active voice with Rita as the subject.
Your conditional sentences are misnamed. They are examples of what are typically called Conditional 2 (Rita would write a letter) and Conditional 3 (Rita would have written a letter) ...
Unlike some languages, nouns after a number other than 1 are plural in English - even after 0 and 0.5.
The distinction between student results and students' results is a different question. Both are valid, and in most contexts there is no practical difference in meaning (though there could be in some cases). The first is a compound noun phrase, with ...
Well, not quite toddler level. I don't remember how to explain grammar to a toddler. I have enough trouble explaining it to me.
Consider a possible answer to the question.
The man suggests calling a tow truck is the best solution.
The man is doing a suggestion. The man is the subject. His action is to suggest.
The thing he is suggesting is that "...
No, they do not mean or imply the same thing.
It is a sporting reference often used as an analogy. Professional sports tournaments are normally organised into leagues, pitting similarly performing teams against one another. When a team reaches the very top of a league, they may be promoted to the next league up; likewise, when they hit the bottom, they may ...
There is no hard and fast rule about the order in which adjectives appear, but there are some general 'rules of thumb' that would suggest your example is fine the way it is.
The Cambridge Dictionary suggests the following order for adjectives:
Size is suggested before any other physical ...
In this context, of indicates that you are talking about a small number of items from a larger group, in the same way as you would talk about
The best of Rihanna - (title of Rihanna's greatest hits album)
Rihanna has recorded a large number of songs: this album contains some songs from that group.
Looking at your sentences:
Take a few of the ...
It is an old joke turned into an insult.
The joke typically goes something like this: The only constants of the universe are death, taxes, and (fill in the blank with a funny constant).
In this case the person is insulting someone by saying they can and will never be able to depend on the specific person they are talking about.
So in full the statement ...
I might be wrong, but I think that, given the mention to 'death and taxes' (it's said that these are the only things one can be sure of, because they always come) the person speaking wants to indicate that being totally independent from his/her interlocutor ('depending on you for absolutely nothing') is in the same line of certainty as death and taxes. It ...
Without more context, it's somewhat difficult to say for certain.... but, in general, "for absolutely nothing" would generally mean the abscence/lack of dependence on someone else (for any need, purpose or otherwise).
To compare, a child can be said to depend on their parents for food and shelter. In other words, children require support from their parents ...
The use of the present perfect (have X-ed) in English is nearly always optional, in the sense that either the present perfect or the past (X-ed) can be used about exactly the same objective events. The difference is in how the speaker is choosing to present the temporal structure of the events.
Using the present perfect asserts the present relevance of the ...
Neither of these is correct at all. The closest thing would be "I do not want them to recognize you." It would make more sense to say something like, "I hope they won't recognize you," because if you are speaking when you say this, Americans will wonder why you're talking awkwardly, otherwise.
It looks like you want to treat "they" as the subject of the infinitive phrase "not to recognize you".
Under a traditional analysis, infinitives do not have subjects -- ever. The traditional parts of the sentence are these:
Direct Object: them
Object Complement: not to recognize you
Verbs that take both direct objects and ...
The first sentence is grammatically impeccable. But grammatically correct sentences can be as nonsensical as this one is. Apparently, someone (the addressee) is in the process of having an influence over his/her own behaviour, and, it seems that the speaker has embarked on this unpleasant in the course of some sort of dispute "over" the speaker. For the ...
"They" is a subject pronoun and, as the name implies, is used as a subject. "Them" is an object pronoun and is used as a direct or indirect object.
This is an example of grammatical cases which are a feature of many Indo-European languages: some sources describe English as having subjective, objective and possessive cases. The impact of these cases is ...
1) and 2) are not different in meaning. The comma would certainly be necessary in most contexts (but somehow seems awkward in a title or paper abstract?)
1) and 3) are close in meaning. 3) is preferable because there is an ambiguity:
admitted to the geriatric ward receiving diabetes medication
Does it mean that the patient was admitted to the hospital,...
I think you may be having trouble with with past perfect continuous tense because you are thinking too logically about it, or want it to say too much.
Your answer to "Which is the particular time in the past which stops her from giving lectures?" is correct in this case, but it is not necessary to state such a time, or even for there to be such a time, to ...
(1) means one scarf of two colours.
(2) and (4) are wrong: we can't say a scarves.
(3) is correct, if a bit formal.
I think most English speakers would say "I see a green scarf and an orange one", but that's the same number of words.
The two are very similar in meaning. The first provides a condition (that the speaker thinks is possible) and an effect. The second provides a hypothetical (the speaker believes that this won't happen, but can imagine it and provide the consequence). The speaker could also say "If he had asked me, I would have accepted." This is now a counterfactual - The ...
Events unfolded in a way that no one could have predicted.
He had an idea that the money had disappeared.
Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a that-clause is a normal content clause (a normal finite subordinate clause), or a relative clause. If we think the clause is attached to a noun like way or idea there is a little test we can do. We can ...
The passive in English is always, whatever the tense, conveyed by the so-called past participle, usually following a part of "be". (Colloquially, it can follow a part of "get" instead"):
He is heard.
He will be heard.
He got heard.
Most verbs form their past participle with -ed: loved, liked, appreciated, angered, buried, created. Some form it ...
All the sentences are grammatically correct, but I do have a few comments:
The sentences on the left are more concise, I would prefer them over the sentences on the right, even though both are correct and have the same meaning.
Sentences 1, 3 and 5 (left) use active voice, while 2, 4 and 6 (left) use passive voice. (All the sentences on the right use ...
In the cited usage, the window is just an idiomatic "flourish" - it could just as well have stopped at tree decorating rules are out, where out is effectively no longer relevant, dismissed from consideration.
In the exact context, we can probably assume that "no longer relevant" sense more precisely implies We no longer have to concern ourselves with ...
"Out of the window" is an idiomatic expression that means something is no longer possible, or no longer an option.
In your example - which I recognise is from The Big Bang Theory, it means that as Sheldon is not with them to enforce his arbitrary rules, they do not need to follow any rules.
A similar idiomatic expression is "off the table".
Most song lyrics can be considered as poetry - sometimes a lyricist or poet will dispense with certain rules of grammar in order to add aesthetics elements to their writing, so don't get too hung up on grammar when it comes to works like this. Yes, the intransitive verb "lie" seems more appropriate than the transitive "lay", but you'd have to ask the artist ...
If I understand what you are looking for correctly, I would use something like:
"Her father has left her, since she was two years old"
or possibly (if correct):
"Her father has left her since her second birthday"
By using 'has' there is no need to use the "till I write this" bit.
My question is that whether they are interchangeable or not?
Yes, they are (in this case).
A sonnet is a lyric poem consisting of a single stanza of fourteen iambic pentameter lines ...
A sonnet is a lyric poem that consists of a single stanza of fourteen iambic pentameter lines ...
A sonnet is a lyric poem which consists of a single stanza ...
Both are grammatically correct.
I can't sit there because her bag is standing there.
In this case, "her bag" is the subject of the 2nd clause. "Her bag" is the main topic of the clause.
I can't sit there because she has her bag standing there.
In this example, "she" is the subject and "her bag" is the object. "She" is the main topic of the clause.