New answers tagged

0

It {some form of rain} for three days. the farmers were very happy to water their fields. Your sentence sounds like it's trying to say the rain watered/is watering the fields, then suddenly says the farmers are watering their fields. When it rains, the rain is doing the watering, not the farmers. The farmers would be happy that their fields are watered ...


0

You could probably read it in a few different ways (and the context would probably let the listener know your exact meaning here), as it is a somewhat complex sentence, but I read the difference simply as follows: I like that you made it a point to bring me food before I started working this morning. You have already started working. I like that you ...


2

The sentence, as written, is understandable (although potentially ambiguous - see below). However, if it were me, I would make a couple of changes, to read: "July 2015: I organised my first family camp in the suburbs of Moscow. At the same time, I closed the family centre that I had opened a year earlier[,] while I was on maternity leave." Also, I would ...


1

The verb 'damage' needs a direct object to be a part of a Predicative Verb in such a sentence. That is why 'damaging' is a predicative adjective here. A tense of the Predicative Verb is the Past Simple in the grammar construction with the linking verb 'be' here.


0

Those are conditional sentences. The first one is not correct. It’s the second conditional sentence kind, which means that the use of ‘wish’ and a simple past verb expresses a desire that could come true in the future. The second sentence is the third conditional sentence kind, it’s constructed using ‘wish’+ ‘had’/‘had not’ + past participle verb, and ...


0

For describes wishes about the past we usually use past perfect tense: I wish I had brought my wallet. And, when we need to talk about two past situations mutually related and clarify their chronology, we should use present perfect + past perfect: They had called before it has happened. However, your sentence don't actually treat about witch situation ...


0

I'm not sure on the context or meaning, but to me this actually seems wrong. I would use something like: which had stopped at the bottom of it. (no need to say "the hill" as we have specified it already) which was parked at the bottom of it. which was stopped at the bottom of it. Or maybe even just: which was at the bottom of it. To say "...


1

BadZen's answer is entirely correct that the second form is not grammatical because the verb tenses don't agree. There are some other subtleties as well, however: So, this is wrong: I wouldn't go to sleep unless my mom would have kissed me goodnight (wrong) One way to fix the verb tense issue would be to change "kiss" to simple modal to match "would (...


1

On the surface, there is no difference between these sentences. If I were to encounter one or the other on its own, I doubt that I'd take them to mean different things. However, if I had to contrast them directly, there are some subtle differences. Because the past perfect implies that the things in question is complete, I might take "I had given him my ...


1

The past perfect one is correct of course. The past simple one I think is correct too. Although my grammar book said: If you don't want to emphasize the causal relationship, you can use past simple to express the event happened before a past point. (I translated myself) I still got a lot of sentences from novels, these are quotes from them: Jonathan ...


1

Out of context, there is nothing to indicate whether Grandfather is still alive or not. The speaker might be an older person talking about their family history, or a young person who will go on to say "...but now he has retired." If you were once a student but are now, for example, in full-time employment, of course you can say "I was a student".


Top 50 recent answers are included