First, you have to use the conditional after "so that," so it should be "so that they wouldn't miss anything."
The best way to say this is:
They arrived early so that they wouldn't miss anything and could find good seats.
I'm just commenting, not answering. Sorry that I don't have 50 reputation yet.
You may downvote me as you like.
This is wrong:
That makes him very happy and says this: "..."
It should be
That makes him very happy and he says this: "..."
The marked phrase is a sentence fragment. You shouldn't be troubled to find it in a script, as it happens frequently in speech. People don't always speak in complete sentences. (Know what I mean?)
The simplest fix would be to simply add a predicate to the fragment, making it a complete sentence:
My dreams are coming true. You and me are saving my lady ...
Will she be happy if she comes to know that you bought it from the stolen money?
is grammatically correct as it stands.
While "would" might be used in place of will, I think "will" is better. This is not discussing an unreal past, or a surely false or highly improbable future, but a plausible but uncertain future.
"bought" should not be ...
The answer by anouk is correct that a past perfect form is not needed here. But there are some other problems with the sentences in the question:
"finishing my graduation" -- A graduation is an event, not a process, so one says "after I graduated" or "after I finished my degree" or "After my graduation", not "After I finished my graduation". One does not ...
You can use this word order, but only in informal spoken English. If you write it down as reported speech, you have to separate the two parts:
The book that your father got from the USA yesterday -- I want it for few
days to read.
There is a significant pause between 'yesterday' and 'I'.
You could simply write the sentence as -
I want the book that your father got from USA for a few days to read.
This eliminates the need to insert a pronoun in the above sentence.
However, if you insist on writing it as two separate sentences, it can be done in the following way -
Your father brought a book from USA yesterday. I want it for a few days to ...
"I do not" is an expression of fact, or personal observation. "I will not" describes a personal preference. In this case, it's more common to express this as a preference, so either C or D ("won't accept") is better.
I think it's a question of context and dialect whether "excuse" should be singular or plural, so I can't say for certain which would be ...
I must admit I cannot fully subscribe to Astralbee's answer.
I do agree with Astralbee that your version is not acceptable formal writing. My reason, however is different. Mine is that your second sentence lacks a verb.
In speech, however, there is no way to distinguish between a comma and a period so that there would be no perceptible difference at all ...
Your re-write doesn't make sense because you have broken it into two sentences.
The original is a statement of what happened, followed by the reason why. The phrase "the sole reason being" only serves to qualify that there was only one reason why it happened. You could remove those 4 words and it would still make sense:
Over the weekend the LA Lakers ...
It's actually probably a bit simpler than you are thinking!
A person/People will always have a fear.
"I have a fear of pain"
"I have a fear of people"
"I have a fear of losing you".
This is because it is countable in the above cases.
However, sometimes fear is used as an abstract concept and, in this case, it can be uncountable.
(A) fear ...
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 ...
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 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.
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.
The simple answer is, because we don't have to, because that's the way English is.
The first case is different from the others. In the first case "long hours" is not the object of the verb, but an adjunct: an adverbial expression. With a particular time, "for" is optional ("I worked three hours" or "I worked for three hours"); but "to work long hours" is ...
"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 ...
"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).
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, ...
Cambridge Dictionary says We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, citing as an example
She plays the piano really well
Not: She plays really well the piano.
But so far as I can see, in OP's example, in sequence is an adverbial element modifying the verb illustrate in exactly the same way really well adverbially modifies plays in the ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Why do young people not have good manners?
is correct. You cannot use the word do and don't in the same sentence in this context as the latter is derived from the former.
The word not describes the word do. You cannot use the word don't to describe do
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 ...
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?"
"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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
"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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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"
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.
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 ...
When you have a list of similar items, start by assuming the relative clause refers to the closest target, in this case "functions". You can then use contextual cues, or common sense, to see if it should apply to any of the other items. For example:
Her basket contains apples, oranges, and other fruits that are not spherical.
The relative clause most ...
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 ...
If the child is of an age to take exams, then they know the difference between playing and studying. I suggest
Stop being silly and study for the exam.
Stop messing around and study for the exam.
Sit down and study for the exam. You can go out to play afterwards.
Not specifically related to a child, but one might say:
Stop messing around, you have an important exam tomorrow.
You could also use:
Stop playing about.
Children are playful by nature, but the two phrases you've offered don't sit right with me, I would amend itas follows:
Tomorrow you have an important exam. Stop playing, sit and study.
Not only X, but also Y
The word “do” will be very useful here. If you remember the three forms that the present tense can take — “I run, I am running, I do run” — then you’ll recognize the proper use of “do“.
Not only do institutes provide X, they provide Y.
Not only does the hotel provide X, it provides Y.
Not only does the hotel provide ...
The use of 'Being' is not incorrect here, but you can't use it with 'precisely' in this way.
Being more precise, I just don't even know what "end up" means.
More precisely, I just don't even know what "end up" means.
Both of these sentences should be preceeded by something is vague, that needs a more accurate statement to follow it ...
According to the Collins Dictionary, it's perfectly fine and grammatically correct.
on trial [phrase]
If someone is on trial, they are being tried in a court of law.
He is currently on trial accused of serious assault.
on trial [phrase]
If you say that someone or something is on trial, you mean that they
are in a situation where people ...
"Is on trial" is the common phrase and perfectly correct. The passive "is put" is odd in the example you give, using the present tense. The verb "put" indicates a single act, but you want to talk about an ongoing state. You could "put" in the past tense:
John is on trial for murder
John was put on trial for murder three weeks ago.