In fact, the second sentence does not make sense. It's grammatically fine, but semantically, it's nonsense.
The phrase "having talked to her" is set in the past. You can remember something from the past, or you can fail to remember it.
But something in the past either did or did not happen; you can't avoid that fact in the present.
The sentence you gave as an answer, "Are my only options to either do X or do Y?" is correct based on the example given. However, it is more natural to put "to do" together (also following the "rule" of not splitting infinitives, which might be argued as artificial). Also, "do" is repeated, and is either unneeded or ...
I would say that this is bad practice in a caption.
The comma isn't strong enough to separate those clauses, but a period doesn't work because the second clause is not a complete sentence.
I would favour:
Okay, I am gonna look around - take a few statements.
Okay, I am gonna look around...take a few statements.
It would not be idiomatic in US English. For one thing, “stationeries” does not refer to a place where things of a certain type are sold, but rather to papers of various kinds. Moreover, the plural of “stationery” is seldom used.
Technically, however, your example does not violate any rule of grammar.
"my such thinking is that" is not grammatically accurate. One wording that utilizes many of the same words, and I believe captures your meaning in a manner that is understandable, is "my thinking is such that..." Another alternative would be to simply remove the "such" from the phrase. Either way, you would be utilizing the same ...
"the meaning is that of a noun" means that the type or kin=d of meaning conveyed in this situation is the kind normally provided by a noun, notmthe kind provided by a verb. Tis construction is common in academic writing.
Both of these are corrrect, and in practice there is no significant difference in meaning for a US Native speaker between "Did you know that you could X" and "Did you know that you can X".
As @TypeIA points out "on Twitter" is more common than "on our* Twitter". But I would not call either incorrect. An alternative ...
Both sound natural, but feel different.
If the police showed-up, and demanded to know why there was broken glass on the ground, you might answer like the first sentence. It's very factual-sounding; clear about the agent, beginning/end, sequence of events.
The second one is more a telling of a story. It starts to suggest a larger context; perhaps some other ...
The first one is fine.
The problem with the second one is that the first phrase modifies the it after the comma, but you really need it to modify he. "It was about to take a gulp from it(self)" is what it strictly means. If you said something like this instead, it would be okay:
About to take a gulp from it, he dropped it and watched as it ...
The first option sounds far more natural.
The construction used in the second option is used when the first part of the sentence is the cause of the second part.
For example, "About to be captured, he decided running away was the best option."
The capturing is both imminent and the reason for the decision.
Recommended usage is that "either" follows the relevant verb, and sits immediately before the contrasts in question. Hence the second suggestion above is grammatically the best - wherein either follows the verb "to be':
"Leftover materials have to be either left behind to be destroyed or kept for your own personal use."
The phrase "Done at" is completely unfamiliar in English. This is an imperfect translation. I think it means "My declaration is made at ..."
Even then there is a problem. "at" could refer to a time or to a place.
So the answer could be
Done at 10.15 am on 26 October 2020
or it could be
Done at 25 La Rue Marie-Stuart, Paris on 26 ...
Assuming you are an Italian currently in Rome
At the beginning you fill out
I Giorgio Aptsiauri, country Italy, date of birth 1 Jan 1990
At the end
Done at Rome on October 26 2020
As @KateBunting suggested in a comment forms in the UK do not usually ask you to say where you filled it out but in some countries this is more common.
1 is fine.
2 sounds a bit odd, almost like you'll be eating lunch for the entire day, though it is understandable and would sound acceptable. You could also lengthen it to "five days' worth of lunch", which I prefer, but the prior "lunch for the entire day" point could still be argued for this phrasing too.
3 sounds okay, but I think 1 is ...
Try searching for the phrase "mental heath impact". You'll get lots of titles that you can use as models. You can attach +NCBI or +NIH to your search phrase and you'll see the titles of a lot of published papers.
(The letters stand for "National Center for Biotechnical Information" and "National Institutes for Health".)
This depends on context. If it has already been established that supplies were disbursed more often than weekly (such as daily), then the sentence is reasonable, as it establishes that his situation is being discussed each week.
If the supplies are only delivered once a week, I'd suggest that it would sound more natural to use something like, "During ...
To me 3 sounds like overkill; 1 comes across as a reiteration of the same point, and would be more common in speech, with a comma separating the two iterations, but three makes them sound like different points, which they’re not, really.
1 and 3 have the same meaning though, and would be acceptable.
Where 1 focuses more on the person having knowledge, 2 ...
Are these the names of the sections, or are you just describing the contents?
If you are describing the contents of the sections, you could say:
This chapter has been divided into two sections, about children and adults respectively.
This chapter has been divided into two sections, relating to children and adults respectively.
This chapter has been divided ...
The usual expression is I can't help thinking that..., meaning it seems to me - I cannot avoid having the opinion that... Whether you use can't or couldn't depends on whether you are referring to the present or the past.
It seems odd, though, to use the expression with you said. Surely the speaker knows whether or not the other person said something? A more ...
These are both wrong.
"everyday" is an adjective. You could talk about "an everyday suit" if for example you were comparing it to a special one only worn to church on Sundays.
However if you're asking about "every day", then either of these is correct:
He wears a suit to work every day.
He wears a suit every day to work.
Neither example is a sentence, they could be an adverbial phrase at the start of a sentence.
The first is archaic, it only exists in a few old songs: "Be it ever so humble, / there's no place like home" The meaning of "Be it" is close to "Even though it is", and so slightly different from "However..."
The second is ...
The respective adjectival form is "Appealing". It is a synonym of attractive or interesting and literally it refers to the esthetic sense but it is often used figuratively. In the phrase "The poem is appealing" the adjective takes a figurative sense, you comunicate to the reader that the poem, thanks to its brilliant aesthetic and rythmic ...
These ten sub-lists together make the full overall list.
These ten sub-lists together make for the full overall list.
The usage of the definite article or preposition "for" followed by the definite article is the correct usage (in this case).
As you said yourself, make up would be ambiguous in this case. The last example sentence of yours is ...
The first option is improved by changing it to:
"If you want to leave a comment that all exam participants will (be able to) see, click here"
The second option sounds the point of the comment is for everyone to see it. The first one sounds more like a note or warning telling people that the comment is visible. But may not be for the sole puprose of ...
"While" has a secondary use that has nothing to do with time. It can also mean "despite the fact that; although".
While [x] is true, [y] is also true.
... could also be written as...
Although [x] is true, [y] is also true.
A time-related example would be:
While John cleaned the house, Jane stayed in bed.
This means that these two ...
Yes, this sentence is correct and idiomatic.
The fire sent everybody running out of the cinema.
Another of your examples occurs, but is relatively less common:
His lectures always send me to sleep.
The phrase "put to sleep" is idiomatic, so it should be
His lectures always put me to sleep.
Following the comment below pointing out the ...
Unfortunately, this sentence is quite ambiguous and it could feasibly refer to either the obstacles or the institutions.
Determing which one it is is usually a matter of context. You might try to see if it could be more clearly written a different way for one fo the options.
In this case, the information that comes afterwards appears to be relating to ...
There is a word "whosever" but it is not often heard. (Lexico labels it "rare".)
"Whoever's" is correct.
However, "whoever's" is only suitable if you are being told not to upvote a question on the grounds of who wrote it. Otherwise, it is better to say "whichever question".
They're both grammatical, but they mean different things:
The first form (awkwardly and unnaturally) says that sentence is intended to describe the situation by using the word "of", and asks if the sentence is correct in general:
Is the sentence ... correct?
The second form asks if it is correct for the sentence to use the word "of" to ...
The first sentence
The material should be issued in parts as small as possible
The material should be issued in as small parts as possible
which is a variant of your second attempt would also be fine although it sounds a bit awkward to my ears. I am assuming you left out the first as which I inserted for you.
"not A but B is C" This works, A and B are nouns and C is a complement that may be a noun or adjective. It is slightly stilted; "B, but not A, is C" would often be better.
Not cats, but dogs are friendly
"not only A but also B is C" This also works and is slightly more emphatic than the equivalent "both A and B are C&...
In this case, the correct sentence would be this:
This is to certify that A, was a full-time postgraduate student in the Doctor of Philosophy program. He/she was majoring in X, and specializing in Y at University Name.
One thing I would note in addition to the above analyses - the sentence could also be interpreted as such:
In developing countries, the investment by multinational enterprises has led to:
the rapid development of industry and commerce
increased employment opportunities
increased the income of the urban population -- this part wouldn't be grammatically ...
This definitely needs the preposition because you are "looking forward" and then stating a direction - the thing you are looking forward to.
The more formal way of saying "I'm looking forward to" is:
I look forward to you solving the problem.
Your example doesn't sound like something one would say informally, and the above sounds better....
Depends on context really.
In isolation I'd interpret it as 'I've recently run 10km' or 'I've just run 10km'.
It may mean 'I have been running 10 km (regularly)'. In which case it's better to add regularly.
If the police officer knows that Jack is in the house then either of the first two phrases is fine. I cannot see any difference here between "Jack's coughing" and "Jack coughing".
If the police officer does not know that it is Jack in the house then I would say the the police office can hear the coughing and he follows its sound. The full ...
That style of English immediately reminds me of JRR Tolkein, but he himself was harking back to earlier times - I believe it was outmoded usage even then.
So, if this is in a literary or poetic context, you will probably be fine - it's perfectly understandable to a native speaker.
#4 would be the correct option.
When using the word loan, it generally refers to the process of availing or providing a loan. Since you want to inform the holder about the amount left, you can say No outstanding loan balance is due on your policy.
If you want to treat this as a problem in logic then:
It is not the case that all good things come to an end.
But we can logically simplify that:
Some good things don't come to an end.
or, interpreting slightly:
Some good things last forever.
(In formal logic, where "P(x)" is any unquantified statement with a variable x, "¬∀x P(x)" is equivalent to "∃...
I think you need to say "mangos" instead of "these" because there's some ambiguity as to whether "these" refers solely to mangos or to mangos and watermelons. The context seems to imply only mangos, but that requires re-reading the sentence to be clear.
The way you’ve written it is better than any of your alternatives.
I would say it like this:
I want to eat watermelon(s) as well as mango(es) because these are the best things to protect us from heat stroke in summer.
Notice that when adding “best” it changes from “the things that” to “the best things to”.
Also, I would pluralise either both fruits, or ...
Look who's talking! and Speak for yourself! are two commonly used comebacks meaning "what you're saying applies to you rather than the thing/person you're speaking about". Pot, meet kettle is rather less snappy, but can be used as well.
There are also Takes one to know one!, I know you are, but what am I?, You can talk! and a myriad of variants of ...
The structures before and after coordinators such as and and but need to be grammatically the same. In your example, rob is a finite verb phrase, so the second coordinate needs to be the finite verb phrase are not robbed. It cannot be the non-finite not be robbed.
If the coordination were in the scope of another auxiliary, eg a modal, both sides would be non-...
You should omit 'this' in the first sentence
I don't like her behavior
but that would be about her behavior in general.
I don't like this behavior of hers.
(note the extra 's' at the end – it's a double genitive) may feel verbose, but it's very natural and refers to more specific behavior, so it may be closest to what you want to express. Otherwise, you ...
If you want it to be a technically correct sentence, it should be punctuated like this:
Five days ago the Evertons left San Francisco in order to extend the family's Mexican history and patch the present onto the past; to find out if there was still copper underground and how much of the rest of it was true, the width of the sky, the depth of the stars, the ...
Not for your sentence.
English follows a "head-body" pattern very often.
There's lots of situations where, if elements share the same "head", it only has to be specified once. Articles and prepositions are common "heads".
I took the black socks and blue socks from the shelf = I took the black socks and the blue socks from the ...