A) "I am glad to find you" or "I am glad [that] I found you"
B) "I just found it"
C) In the middle of an argument, you would probably use the present tense ("OK OK you win the discussion") but there is nothing wrong with "you won the discussion"
For this specific example, I would say it is fine to leave it out - duplication of any word in English tends to sound odd, however if this was something similar, in something along the lines of a user-manual, then the repetition does make the intent slightly clearer.
If you don't like the repetition, but do want the clarity, then any true synonym of also, ...
He's saying that you should take the evidence the author is mentioning into consideration.
Basically, he's attesting a story that seems unbelievable, but he's saying that he's got a significant amount of evidence to back up that the story actually happened, and that Mr. Rip van Winkle was a very reliable source. As a result, a reader should consider these ...
Let's separate the parts, and see what they mean:
"Modern philosophy begins with Descartes."
Descartes' philosophy was revolutionary, and it started "modern" philosophy.
"whose fundamental certainty is the existence of himself and his thoughts"
"Whose" refers to Descartes. He is certain that his thoughts exist, and that he exists. This is expressed in ...
Referring to someone as "family" is common and idiomatic. Used this way, it always means a member of your own family. All of the following are acceptable:
I think of him as family.
I see him and his wife as family.
Do you think of him as family?
He's like family to you.
We're all family here.
The usage carries the implication that the ...
I think that the best way to express what you are trying to say is, "I hope that this pandemic will end by July" or "I would like this pandemic to end by July". Both sentences express the idea that you are hoping that when we get to the month of July, the pandemic will be over. You could be even shorter: "I hope this is over by July!"
"This is true" is the main clause, and "whether...." is the subordinate clause.
... this is true, whether John has heard about ...
Since this clause follows a to-be verb, "whether" not "if" is used.
In the second example:
... this is true, no matter John has heard about ...
"no matter" does not introduce the indirect question of those things John ...
The use of "etc." (and its period) I don't think are really a problem. This is fairly common (and correct usage) and most people will not be confused by the use of a period in an abbreviation in the middle of a sentence.
There are a couple of comments I would make on other aspects, however:
First, you should have a comma before "etc." as it is a separate ...
I took the letters in [in the morning], so there was no need for
father to know.
The two prepositions may be consecutive, but they are separate constituents.
The first "in" is a particle (a preposition) serving as complement of "took", with the intervening NP “the letters” serving as direct object of “took”.
The PP "in the morning" is a temporal adjunct,...
The form you have proposed is not correct and not idiomatic in English. To express the idea behind it, you can say:
"How can I decide which book to read fully, and which to read [only] a summary of?"
Another possibility is:
"How can I decide which book to read fully, and which book to read only as a summary."
"Take in" is a phrasal verb, probably meaning that the speaker took the letters into the house. "In the morning" is a prepositional phrase, telling what time of day that action occurred.
So it is a rearrangement of "In the morning, I took the letters in, so there was no need for father to know."
This paragraph is very poorly written. If I were the writer's editor, I would reject it and tell the writer to fix the run-on sentences and incorrect punctuation.
Furthermore, the speaker in the direct quote rambles from thought to thought without much consideration of whether what she's saying is grammatically correct.
I would analyze this as the ...
For sentence (1), either singular or plural could be used. It does not matter that "people" earlier is plural, because "people" is actually not the subject of that verb (it is only part of a sub-clause used to set the context for the main sentence). The core of the main sentence is actually:
Wearing a medical mask in the community is not recommended.
Simplifying the question by removing as much as possible, these are the two forms in question:
1 We should have been prepared. --> we are prepared .
2 We should have prepared. --> we ought to prepare
As for number 1, it could be read as passive, but that is an unlikely reading
To be passive, "prepared" would have to be used in a transitive sense.
Both are grammatically correct. And they mean the same thing.
"There are not people like you at my school" might be considered a little awkward. I'd probably say "There are no people like you at my school", or "There are not any ..." like your example. But it's correct as is and would not confuse anyone.
Side note: In your "bread" example, "bread" is a ...
If you say, to the students at the other school, that there aren't any nice people like them at your school, you are saying something negative about the people at your school, but you are saying something positive or friendly about (and to) the people at the other school.
First question: "on the rack".
Second question: Your example sentence works. You could also say:
"Please don't put my clean clothes next to the dirty rags."
"Don't hang clothes on the cleaning cloth rack."
The possibilities are many.
"People sleeping on the street" is a gerund clause. It is a clause with the verb in its participle form "sleeping", functioning as a noun.
You could say, for example
Pears are an alternative to apples.
You can see the word "apples" is a noun. By analogy to this, the phrase "people sleeping on the street" is a noun phrase, and this one is a gerund.
There are many kinds of things available here.
Is it the same as:
There are many kinds of things that are available here.
Yes, it is, the former is preferred.
Nowadays, there are only two people (who are) living in this house.
Can I leave out who are to mean the same thing?
It says exactly the same thing, and it is definitely ...
"People sleeping on the streets" means there are homeless people. Saying "there must be an alternative" means that the writer finds the societal condition of homelessness unacceptable, and insists that there must be an alternative: a solution to the problem of homelessness.
"People sleeping on the streets" can be analyzed as this relative clause:
In the passive voice, the subject becomes "the assignment". Since this is singular (and not special, like "you"), the correct form of "have" is "has", so it should be:
The assignment has been completed by you.
I think your understanding of point #1 is actually incorrect. The sentence:
I heard the sound of the meal being cooked.
would be interpreted by most people to mean "I heard a sound" and "the sound was produced by the activity the meal being cooked". (I heard somebody cooking it)
If instead, you actually wanted to say that you heard the sound of the ...
No, the scope doesn't need to be the whole Earth. It means he is as willing and eager (can-do) as the best you will find when you search within some implied set of professionals. That implied set would be in the context of the statement.
Both are correct, but mean something different.
"He found people who are ..." limits the descriptor to a specific group.
"He found that people are..." applies the descriptor to all people.
In the second option, if the speaker wanted to limit this to less than all, change of the verb to "could be" would give the application definition of potential for ...
Your original sentence is awkward. It would make more sense to say something like "He bought his new car in 2015" or "He has been driving his new car since 2015."
These would all be correct:
"When did he buy his new car?" ("He bought his new car in 2015" or "He bought his new car five years ago" would make sense as answers.)
"How many years ago did he buy ...
The sentence is correct with the verb "are" to agree with "people".
By "joining", I think you mean the relationship between "people" and "whose".
These are antecedent and relative pronoun. It can be said the the pronoun "whose" refers to the noun "people".
I suggest you use the search phrase "relative clauses with 'whose'" in a google search. You ...
The two sentences have the same meaning.
The second one does not omit 'which is'. The original clause with 'which is'
which enables a comprehensive investigation of the corruption case
enabling a comprehensive investigation of the corruption case
and functions as an sentence adverbial phrase to modify the first half, "The company has ...
Both statements are valid. The difference lies in the context.
"Water can change into ice" denotes the capability of water to change it's form.
"Water can be changed into ice" denotes the capability of a person or an object to change water's form.
The second statement would make more sense if additional information is given.
Eg. Water can be changed into ...
Colin's answer is right, except that I see — in line with avid's comment — that the different temporal focus indeed indicates a small difference in meaning.
When I say "wasn't it supposed to start 30 minutes ago" I talk about the actual start. A good example would be fireworks where the start would be an event in itself, and everybody is waiting ...
It's odd and would be considered a mistake. The "tag question" should be
You added me, didn't you?
Since the question form is "Did you add me." and not "Wasn't it you that added me"
If you said
It was you that added me, wasn't it?
That is a correct sentence.
According to Michael Harvey, adding 'isn't it?' or 'wasn't it?' after any positive ...
Both are grammatical. Both are fully idiomatic. Both can describe the same set of circumstances, and be used in the same context.
As usual with questions of aspect in English, the choice is a matter of how the speaker wishes to present the temporal focus.
If the speaker uses the past infinitive here (to have started) they are setting the temporal focus ...
...stitch it up and stitch it down.
In usage, these examples (up and down) do not show the direction of movement of the needle. These two idioms are understood to mean "repair" [up] or "secure" [down] something that needs closing or tightening.
"I need to stitch it up before I can wear this torn shirt."
"The shirt pocket is falling off, so I will stitch ...
Can I say "The price is going up and up as the people buy more and more."?
Yes, that's entirely idiomatic.
going down and down the road
This sounds a bit less idiomatic, perhaps.
You could certainly use this formation with going up / going down. For example you could say something like "We visited a mine. It was spooky standing there for 10 minutes ...
The word candidates refers to nominated entities. In this case, the countries are the candidates. They are being considered to be in the EU.
A better answer would be:
Being candidates for entry to the EU, countries expecting strong economic growth will increase transport flows, particularly, road haulage traffic.
Your two simple sentences are not correct, unfortunately. I would split it into two sentences like this:
Countries which are candidates for entry to the EU are expected to show strong economic growth. This [economic growth] will also increase transport flows, in particular road haulage traffic.
Strong economic growth is expected in ...
No, there is no omitted to, and it would be grammatically incorrect to include one. Some grammatical constructions require an infinitive with to: others require a bare infinitive (an infinitive without to). According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the verb make meaning cause requires a bare infinitive:
make verb (CAUSE)
B1 [ T ]
to cause something:
The sentence parts after "both" lack parallelism, which they should have to be combined under the word "both". A suggested correction:
"... in both how people interact with each other and how they maintain and build relationships."
A simpler correction would be just to drop the word "both" from the sentence, leaving "how people interact with each other and ...
The sentence is not grammatically correct.
As @stevekeiretsu says in his comment, perhaps the writer meant, "I was preoccupied with getting cute girls to like me" or something similar.
In any case, "to" is not serving as either a preposition or a conjunction in this sentence. It is used to create an infinitive, "to like".
I don't think "to" is ever used ...
The quoted text is very informal.
"Bruh" is informal. It means "brother." Usually it's an attention getting symbol rather than containing any actual information. You can leave it out if you like. If you are speaking informally you can include it. If it really is your brother you are speaking to you can say "brother."
"Gotta" is informal for "got to," ...
As the comment by the original poster makes clear, the original question misstates the sentence being asked about. The actual sentence does not have "that fact" as the object of "know."
Subordinate clauses may act as nouns. In particular, subordinate clauses initiated by words that are also interrogatives ("who," "what," "where," "when," "why," and "how") ...
As @Moha mentioned in the comments you could use:
My pool has been shut down for 10 days now, and it will remain shut down for another 2 weeks.
"closed" is a state. and as you probably know we use different forms of the word "to be" to express states in English:
the pool is closed
the pool was closed
the pool has been closed, so on and so ...
"Hi sir GM, You Just came/come to office?"
Since GM has already arrived, use the past tense "came" in this instance.
The word "just" in this sentence is an adverb modifying the verb "came". The word "just" can be a noun, but not a verb.
A thin piece of wood, metal, plastic or bamboo is called a slat. If you split a large bamboo pole into flat pieces you could call each one a "bamboo slat". This term is used by several bamboo wholesalers on alibaba.
The fence was made by weaving bamboo slats between bamboo stakes that had been driven into the ground.
There is no specific term for a ...
There's no special rule about adding an 's' for questions, it simply depends on the "person" of the verb, e.g.:
1 I teach we teach
2 you teach you teach
3 he, she, it teaches they teach
If the the referent is singular, e.g. "a national program", use "teaches."
If the the referent is plural, e....