You can consider the phrase "in front of" to be a compound word.
Compound nouns are quite common: "car park" is a compound noun. They formed by joining some words (in this case nouns) together. Originally a "car park" was a park (=a public open space) for cars. But the words have grown together, and now "car park" ...
I'd understand this "with" to be "using". You are using your mouth to make a smile. You are not using the rest of your face.
Changing can to could is possible, but not needed. This this "be able to" meaning of can.
I lack confidence.
This sentence is in the simple present and is more direct and forceful than:
I am lacking confidence.
...which is in the present progressive tense. The second construction is often used to "pad" the speaker's meaning and is less direct.
Taking this into consideration, "I lack confidence" may be considered mildly ...
Astralbee's answer is correct.
Additional nuance might be implied from common-use idioms.
at: as a social activity
"a regular at cards", "a regular at parties"
implies the balcony is an active social location
on: as status or importance
"a regular on television", "a regular on the dancefloor"...
"On" or "at" both work. "Of" doesn't really work in this context.
"On" usually means on the surface of something, like a floor, a table etc. So you could say that the bird was standing on your balcony.
"At" usually means that you have reached the periphery of something. For example, you might arrive at your ...
I think you're confusing two sentences because the context of the sentences makes them equivalent. Replacing "of" with "a part of" brings some clarity.
"What race are you?" vs "What race are you a part of?"
"I wouldn't hate someone because they are a particular race" vs "I wouldn't hate someone ...
"At sea" means out to sea. As in on a boat etc. surrounded by the water of the sea.
"We spent 2 weeks at sea" means we were on a boat that was sailing on the sea for 2 weeks without going to land.
"At the sea" means on or near the shore/beach by the sea.
"We spent 2 weeks at the sea" means we went for a trip/holiday to ...
No. It's the kind of sentence like "there's a cup on the table": There would have to be / a given good thing / in the context. The parts saying what and where are in a different order, probably to adjoin the clause "to which we refer" smoothly and unambiguously.
No, it's just a rearrangement of
If we were to use the definite article, there would have to be a given good thing to which we refer in the context, something well enough determined so that it can be identified.
The word particular might be better than the word given in that sentence.
Little (like few) has negative polarity. It implies "only a little" or "not very much", or sometimes "contrary to what you might have expected, only a little".
A little (and a few) do not have this implication - they are neutrally stating that the number or amount is small, and saying nothing about what you might have expected.
In general they are equivalent in meaning but there are circumstances when they differ.
If I film her on my cellphone then it is unambiguous that I am filming here and I am using for that purpose my cellphone.
If I film her with my cellphone then I might be making a film of her carrying my cellphone.
In general though the context would make it clear what is ...
The meeting starts at 2 in the afternoon.
is correct and would be used in the context Although it is more usual to say 2 pm or 2 o'clock
The meeting starts from 2 in the afternoon.
Although it is technically correct its use is not correct in this context. It is used where the arrival time is not binding. It is considered incorrect form, to arrive after ...
The correct word is of. The aspects are things belonging to the predecessor. Well, that's not quite true, but there's no other way to explain it without using the word of. They're a part of it, they're properties of it... They are the predecessor's aspects.
I would have to say from is incorrect here. The aspects are an intrinsic part of (I can't avoid using ...
"Whom" is correct. This is, however, something that native English speakers – especially American – will usually say incorrectly.
If you change the order of the words between the commas (known as an appositive) into a declarative sentence, it becomes "I spoke to whom at the meeting." This very clearly indicates that whom is an object.
You don't have to add "by/from", this wouldn't add any meaning to the already established phrase. The reader should understand intuitively that this phrase is an outcome for the previous.
His belief was under siege.
It can be added as an introduction which makes more sense:
From these words, his belief was under siege.
By saying these words, his ...
In this context, "to me" means "in my opinion", so it's a good way to answer when someone asks for an opinion.
In this context, "for me" means "in my life/according to my beliefs/etc." so doesn't make sense as an answer to an opinion about a t-shirt.
In the context of a more personal question, like What is 'family'?, &...
A lot of native English speakers avoid the use of "whom" at all, and substitute "who" in every case. I think it might be because they think saying "whom" makes you sound pedantic and over-educated.
Given that increasing trend, you will certainly hear people say things like,
"Mr. Lee, who I spoke to at the meeting, is ...
Your way of thinking about them seems correct.
"If" would be used for cases where it is unclear whether or not something will happen.
"When" would be used for cases where something is going to happen but won't happen in every case.
Compare for example:
"If you need to specify a year use this format"
It is unknown whether you ...
The construction "bought [a car] [to somebody]" is not idiomatic. It doesn't really have a meaning.
It is idiomatic to say "I bought a car from my sister", which means that your sister sold you a car.
This is because "bought" implies that the object comes towards the buyer. But sold means it goes away. So you say "The car ...
in the cinema is not needed. going to at the end is fine.
Declarative sentence: X is the name of the movie we are going to see. Question sentence form: What's the name of the movie you're going to [see?].
In fact, in English, there are many, many times in speech where the verb after to is left out if it is understood.
Here are a few examples:
Q: Would they ...
Yes, "she's just behind you" means about the same thing as "she's right behind you".
"Just" and "right" can usually be used interchangeably in this sense of "closely". "Your destination is just up ahead."
The words "in" and "at" can't possibly function as prepositions here, since ...
The use of have is not needed as it is assumed. The use of airline is not needed and I would suggest incorrect. In this case a plane ticket would be correct but as you have included flight in the sentence this is already assumed and would therefore be repetitive.
I got a ticket for the morning flight.
I got a ticket to travel on the morning flight.
I got ...
Some Interesting Answers and comments; However
As an preposition, adverb It relates to
inside or not further than an area or period of time:
Two thirds of Californians live within 15 miles of the coast.
In 1992 cross-border controls within the EU were dismantled.
For orders within the UK, please enclose £2.50 for post and packing.
The resort lies within ...
The use of for and by in this case are virtually interchangeable although the meanings are slightly different. "For" relates to how long something is going to happen (The duration). Whilst; By relates to the "deadline" for completion.
For = Duration and By = Deadline
"I wanted to delay this meeting for two days".
"by" and "for" will both work but for different reasons.
"I wanted to delay this meeting for two days" says that you want to do something for a certain amount of time. You could say, "I want to live in Hawaii for 2 years". You could say, "I will keep working for as long as I'm healthy." You could say, "...
All are correct. However, one must never use the expression M/s ABC Limited, because ABC Limited is a singular entity whereas 'M/s' is used to denote a collection of persons, as in case of a Partnership Firm, an Association of Persons, or a Body of Individuals.
Use of prefix 'M/s' before a limited company is wrong because a company is a single unique entity, ...
Usually with countries, cities, districts, and other geopolitical regions and territories, we use "in":
"The hotel is in England","...in London", "...in the Northern part of London", "...in a rough section of town", etc.
This makes sense to me because I picture these kinds of (human-designated) locations as ...
Certainly "in". This is the standard sense "in a region"
The difference between "North" and "Northern" is subtle and mixed with particular idioms. For example it is nearly "North London", and hardly ever "Northern London". This is because "Northern" (in British English) means "Of ...
You are absolutely right.
If you unravel the relative clause and change it to active voice, you get:
[somebody] applies for a certificate of compliance for the house.
Note that, as you rightly stated, the sentence definitely requires two fors- one relating to the house, and another relating to the certificate. Applying that to your sentence, you get:
You are partially right, it does need to say "apply for", but it needs another change as well. You'll notice that the sentence does contain the preposition "for". I think the writer thought they had a choice of preposition placement but has inadvertently confused the overall meaning.
In many other contexts the placement of the preposition ...
The video mentioned above 'How to speak in an American accent' was made by a British person who is giving some tips to speak in a different accent.
This is because when you speak in an accent that isn't your usual one, then you speak *in an accent. For example, 'Can you speak in an Indian accent'?
For the above example, you can also use 'do'. For example, '...
Your original quote was:
You need to know what you want them to understand about you.
The sentence shown above is grammatically correct. However, I can see why it would seem confusing. Let us explain some things.
The following two words have meanings similar to "Understand":
Suppose you ...
In English, there are words which show how many of something there are.
All of these words specify the number of cars (the quantity of cars)
The word "by" is usually followed by a word which specifies the quantity of things performing an action
Matthew was annoyed by the salesman
I would put it this way:
In the code square_root(my_circle.get_area()) the computer first calculates my_circle.get_area(). Secondly, the computer calculates the square root of the result found in the first step.
In the code sqrt(1 + 8), we first compute 1+8. After that, we pass the result from 1 + 8 into the sqrt function.
I'd imagine that what's going on here is that "trace signal" should be understood to be in quotation marks, and that their computer or other gadget has a button somewhere labelled "Trace Signal", and they're so used to this device that they just call it "a 'Trace Signal'". It's not strictly grammatical, but people do talk like ...
So, I've investigated my question. As I understand it works like that:
I could do it in the morning
I could do it tomorrow morning.
I could do it in a morning. (about any morning, not commonly used)
I could do it in the mornings. (about every morning)
I could do it on a lovely morning. ('on' because of an adjective)
And with 'night':
I could do it at ...
Well being as a Quinjet exists in Marvel Cinematic Universe, they can could and will say anything they think fits with the story so trying to determine the correctness of the "trace signal on Rick's physiological" seems a little pointless
I would suggest you ignore the remark as you have done with origins/physical possibility of the Quinjet and ...
If you lie on top of the sheets, duvet, etc, then you are on the bed. If you get under the sheets, then you are in bed, and you can lie in bed, stay in bed, read in bed, sleep in bed, and do all those other lovely things "in bed" as you please.
On is a preposition of place used to express location of an object at a given point of time.
The cat is sleeping on the table.
The cat was already sleeping on top of the table when we saw it. Therefore, no movement occurred (for e.g. the cat jumping upon the table and then going to sleep).
Onto is a preposition generally used to express “on top of,” “to a ...
Doesn't seem wrong to me, only stylistically awkward. But I would prefer something smoother and more readily decipherable.
How about, "For rate-limiting to work properly, two seconds is a reasonable time to retain states for"?
When a description follows the noun or verb remain or remains, it very often takes OF:
The Remains of the Day
the remains of the fort on the hill
The remains of the meal were scattered on the lawn.
Does anything remain of your former relationship?
Nothing remains of our friendship.
The person's remains were put in the morgue. [There no as remains does not ...
Your intuition is correct. On X pages is used to describe the content contained within a single page or range of pages. In X pages is used to describe a number of pages. So:
In ten pages, describe your activities over the summer. Use red font on the first five pages and green font on the next five.
The difference is in how you use them.
Different prepositions work better with different contexts and constructions, as in:
My house is on the road to the dam. (Take the road to the dam and you will see my house.)
My house is up/down the road from library. (It's further on from the library, and may be up or down an incline.)
My house is beside the road to ...
I'm not sure, to be honest. I don't think this really has any established rule. It's awkward because there's not any actual thing that you're putting somewhere. The good thing about that, though, is that there's no wrong answer because native speakers don't have any rule about it either. Any of them would sound OK and it would be quite clear what you ...