If you’ve [made a change [that you feel [would [benefit the community
I’ve bracketed the subordinate clauses. There are four in all.
The understood subject of "made" is "you", and of "would" and "benefit" is "a change".
From Merriam-Webster's definition of contrary:
on the contrary
: just the opposite
// The test will not be easy; on the contrary, it will be extremely difficult.
What the phrase does is contradict a claim within the previous clause:
The test will not be easy.→ The test will be just the opposite of easy.
The phrase doesn't contradict the entire ...
The verb is is in a subordinate clause:
What's it mean that the review is now a criminal probe?
It works like this sentence:
Ryan Lucas said that the matter is now a criminal investigation.
"That the matter is now a criminal investigation" is the object of "said". The subordinate clause is like a sentence within a sentence. As a whole, it serves as a ...
"He said that man had been drinking for a year, or had been drinking all year before he sobered up".
"had been drinking" is past perfect continuous tense, which is used to indicate that it had been in progress until another point in the past = he sobered up. The period of drinking happened before getting sober, that's why the past perfect continuous is ...
Yes they are. So and that, when used to mean "in order that", are interchangeable, as seen in this example from Ngram:
let us die that we may live. (original)
let us die so we may live.
let us die so that we may live.
See also this poem.
...aplaud so we may evolve lizard to angel (original)
...applaud that we may evolve lizard to angel
There are a few things that need to be mentioned here.
First of all, the tense doesn't depend on whether you're referring to a specific person/entity or a "non-specific" person/entity. The only difference is that the verb would inflect (i.e. "you eat" would become "he eats"). For example:
If I turn on the lights, I will waste electricity.
If you ...
5 tips to learn English easily.
Q2) Yes, that is a to-infinitival clause functioning as an adjective, modifying "tips".
Q1) No, it is not a complete sentence. An infinitival clause is subordinate, and there is no main clause for it to be subordinate to.
This is an example of a sentence with a main finite clause followed by that subordinate clause:
As has been pointed out in comments, it would be impossible for someone to win awards for something before they started, and yet your sentence does sound a little odd because the second statement reads as a dependent clause.
It would be clearer if you wrote:
She began her acting career in Hollywood and went on to win 15 awards for her work between 2008 and ...
She has provided five witness statements to the court in total. These
statements detail acts of physical, mental violence etc.
Yes, that is grammatically correct and has the proper meaning.
Another possibility is:
She has provided five witness statements to the court in total. These detail acts of physical, mental violence etc.
The reason that the above ...
 Give me blood and I will give you freedom.
 Be industrious and you will succeed in life.
Constructions like these do not have the form or literal meaning of conditionals, but they serve indirectly to convey a conditional meaning. The first clause in each example is not an adjunct (your adverbial), but a main clause and thus these are compound ...
Tense depends on the time of the action of the verb, NOT on whether the subject is specific or non-specific.
Subject : You (specific) :
Zero conditional : If you have an unhappy childhood, you are more protective of your kids.
Conditional type 1 : If you have an unhappy childhood, you will be more protective of your kids.
Conditional type 2 : ...
I agree with you: it doesn't seem like the best fit here. That's because I also interpreted 'on the contrary' to contrast the entire previous sentence, but I think it's only intended to contrast '(not) trustworthy'. However, it is correct.
Perhaps it's not the best structure by the author.
I would propose:
The man wasn't very trustworthy. In fact, he had ...
The idea of replacing ", which" with ", and it" is not strict equivalence, but a a general similar meaning. The intention is to demonstrate to the student how a non-restrictive clause adds additional information. This additional information could often be added in a co-ordinated clause or even in a separate sentence.
So the first example "This book is ...
It sounds strange since its kind of mashing up two ways to say the same thing. Its OK to say
I know how he did it
I know the method he used
But you can't put them together like that.
A "method" is something that is used, followed, etc. But a method isn't something you "do." And appending "how" after a noun is going to sound wrong in any ...
Yes, it is grammatical. You are correct about the object of found: it's the entire clause starting with "Russian…" There are two reasons for the comma.
The comma is conventional in this type of reversed sentence structure
First, it's conventional to separate the subordinate clause from the main clause with a comma in sentences with this "reversed" ...
Yes, it is grammatical.
Russian military officers hacked Democratic servers to steal thousands of emails in 2016, the intelligence community and the special counsel found.
The verb "found" does not operate on the object "Russian military officers", as you state. For a start, they are the subject, but "hacked" is the verb that goes with the officers; "...
1) so they could win the championship=it has not been played yet, future idea
2) so they could have won the championship=it has been played and they lost, past
present and past conditional, in 1) and 2) respectively
Please note: could win is not a past tense.
It is the present conditional tense: I could win, if I tried.
The past of it is: I could have ...