The rule is that that you can interpose adverbs, indirect objects, and prepositional phrases between a verb and its direct object. Anyone who tells you there must be no interruption is simply citing a false rule.
What is true is that an interruption by a long, complex prepositional phrase may interfere with comprehension. That is a question of style rather ...
It's not about rules, but more about style and readability. One problem with inserting adverbs between the verb and the object is that it may not be clear what they modify. One silly example of this:
Adam: He rode quickly his horse into town.
Byron: You mean he rode into town quickly?
Adam: No, "Quickly" is the name of his horse.
In your example, ...
"Meeting" is the present continuous form of the base verb "meet".
When you use a verb in the infinitive form, ie "to meet", the general rule is to use the base form of the word, so you should not say "to meeting".
The correct sentence from your examples is:
I am always eager to meet you.
The source of your confusion may be that you see the word ...
Both are correct, as far as the "I" goes, but one does not say "I work as a police". Rather it should be
I work as a policeman.
I work as a policewoman.
I work as a police officer.
I work as a police officer and am happy with it.
has elided the second "I", which is implied. This is fine.
It should be:
Why do young people not have good manners?
Why don’t young people have good manners?
If you were making a declaration (as in a title) instead of asking a question, you could say:
Why young people don't have good manners.
The phrase "on-screen" pretty much always means "something dsiplayed on the screen of a computer" (or in some cases a television or movie screen). Metaphorically, it can mean "directly visible" as in
The character Jones never kills anyone on-screen, but we learn of several off-screen killings.
This form could be used even of a novel, where of course ...
"When turn on" is not grammatical: "when" needs to be followed by one of
a full finite clause, including subject (eg when it is turned on)
a participial clause, active (eg when turning the tap on) or passive (when turned on)
an infinitive clause with "to" (when to turn the tap on) - this construction is different from the others, as it behaves as a noun ...
"come over" means "cover". While "over" is usually used with verbs of movement, "above" is more frequently used with verbs of state. Notice you've said:
Dark clouds have come over the city (and now are above the city).
In the case of the first three sentences, as is a preposition:
2 : in the capacity, character, condition, or role of
// works as an editor
In other words, it's possible for somebody to say this:
I don't respect you as an employee, but I do respect you as a parent.
→ I don't respect you in the role of an employee, but I do ...
As an American speaker, I think you are correct. 1 and 2 sound fine. 1' implies she did not find a life at the convent. 2' sounds like we are trying to figure out the motivation of something "they" did in the past.
The second one is grammatical, but quite literary (the use of "our" with an "-ing" word is something that many people would not use in speech.)
The first is not grammatical because there is no noun phrase to act as the subject of "seems". To make it grammatical you would need something like "I understand some people will feel that the fact that we are ...
These are correct without "in" and sound much more natural that way. These examples are using gerunds, not participles. To see that, note that the first two would work equally well with the infinitive:
We spent the first month just to debate what to call ourselves.
You had no business to read my private letters.
Both examples are grammatically correct.
However, you would use 1) and 2) when the action is complete, or is instant (and therefore complete by default.) For example, you would only say "I saw my friend being shot" if the friend got shot over a period of time (multiple shots were fired and hit the friend)
You would use 1a) and 2a) when her seeing of the ...
It is perfectly idiomatic to use sentence 1.
Sentence 2 is OK also, but 2 letters longer.
You can read more here about "The…the… with comparative adjectives":
Structure: the + comparative adjective + clause + the + comparative adjective + clause
The more adventurous it is, the more I like it. (NOT The more it is adventurous, the more I like it.)
About the only context where native speakers use the construction behind [possessive (pro)noun] back (OP's example #3) is the figurative usage...
If you've got something to say, say it! Don't just go talking about me behind my back!
...which doesn't really mean from a physical location somewhere behind me (it nearly always means when I'm not present to ...
I would not omit "being" in any of these four cases, unless I were writing a novel or a poem. I wouldn't say it's incorrect. It may be a style issue. If you added the word "with" it would be clearer:
The word “book” has a double meaning, with the noun form being "..."
With his iPad dead, he felt bored.
I was preparing the food, with my friends sick of ...
Without any other context, "Why don't you [bare infinitive verb]?" would usually be interpreted as a casual, encouraging invitation:
"Why don't you sit and relax for a while?"
"Why don't you think it over for a few days, and get back to me?"
"Why don't you show us some of your designs?"
"Why don't you dance for us?" ["Why don't you dance in ...
My choice would be will.
used for saying that you are willing to do something or that you intend to do it
If you won’t tell him the truth, I will. Who’ll help me in the kitchen?
"Why won't you dance in front of us?" means, "Why aren't you willing to dance in front of us?" Or "Why don't you want to dance in front of us?"
I think it works either way. When writing, I would prefer using "of" for clarity, but I might say it without the "of".
"not that nice a hotel", "not that great a cook", "not that good a hockey player" are some other examples I found on google.
As with most uses of the past perfect (and many other questions of tense in English) either is possible, and the (slight) difference is in the temporal viewpoint or focus.
With "Why couldn't I have just let", the temporal focus is at the time of the (hypothetical) point of asking the girl, and is looking backward over the build-up.
With "Why couldn't I ...
"Go around doing" is a completely neutral expression. It is neither good nor bad. You have to determine that from context.
For example, you could write your sentence 1 as the positive:
My daughter goes around telling everyone how much she loves me.
However, "keeps going around" is slightly pejorative, because the use of "keep" implies doing ...
There are many kinds of adjectival phrases, or rather, many parts of speech which can be used to modify nouns. Participle phrases (that act as adjectives) can be combined with other modifiers. Example:
The [small][whining][terrier] dog [on the front seat of my car] [looking out the window] is not my dog.
In your example, "starting with mine" is more of ...
Well for a start it’s direct speech, so pretty much anything goes. But even given that, I’d say it’s perfectly fine. You could view it as a prematurely terminated list, where it’s being suggested that the speaker was planning to describe a four-item list:
Okay, I am gonna look around, take a few statements, worry a few suspects and generally put the fear ...
One and two you cannot remove it but for three and four you can. This is because the word "being" before another word means that the word (in #1 this word would be "poor") describes the person ("he" in #1). You can reword it to have the same meaning in these examples:
Number 1 means: he is poor but he is also happy.
Number 2 means: he is fast but he is ...
In your examples, there's effectively no difference, but there can be.
If someone is known as a painter, then painting is what they're famous for; painting is the main thing that comes to most people's minds when they think of that person. On the other hand, if someone is known to be a painter, then that fact is confirmed to be true, but it may be obscure ...
The usages are very similar and typically can be used interchangeably, at leas in the three instances you have given.
However there is a slight difference.
"To be" puts the focus on actions, while "as" puts the focus on inherent identity.
Put into practice for 1-2:
#1 implies (at least to me) that that it is the people's actions that are understood as ...
More common usage would be:
"the whole world collapsed around me."
"the whole world crumbled around me."
but since this is clearly fiction, you are allowed a degree or two of "poetic licence" and there are loads of similar similes available, with slight adjustment, such as "a hole opened up beneath my feet"