New answers tagged

0

The first sentence is temporary there for stands is wrong.and not linking to speaker there for standing is correct But second sentence is permanent there for stands is correct


0

Since the question was asked in the past, the form "I asked him" is proper in the past tense. Since the Eiffel Tower has not moved the form "where the Eiffel Tower is located" (using the present tense) is just fine. This kind of mixing o tenses is perfectly normal. One can even mix past and future, as in: I asked her yesterday where she ...


1

Any has nothing to do with the verb, so tense is irrelevant. All of the following are acceptable, past present and future: She didn't find any of the coins. We don't find any problem with your work. I won't have any time tomorrow to do that. It is the logic of sentences 2 and 3 that are at fault. Since they're in the past, it is not any one question, but ...


4

The equivalent of "do" in this sentence is "to be its keynote speaker" , not "teaching". Therefore it is correctly written as "to be" and not "to being". Networking and teaching is the topic of his speech


1

Both are correct. Americans are more likely to use the simple past "tried", and native speakers from other countries are more likely to use the present perfect "has tried". There's no functional difference.


1

The fourth sentence is wrong: the word that introduces a clause, and a clause must have a main verb. go is either a bare infinitive (ie not a main verb) or present simple (in which case it should be goes. All of the sentences are contrived: "arranged it [so] that" makes it sound like Jake has an evil plan, and needs his daughter away from home next ...


2

I would say Jake has arranged it so that his daughter will go on a trip next week although I would be more likely to say Jake has arranged for his daughter to go on a trip next week.


0

The first is correct: "If you would have worked, . . . " Why? . . . because the tense is future perfective; and, only the first part of the verbal form changes in such a construction. And, by the way, I think, it should properly be this: "If you would have worked hard, you would not have had to have suffered this much."


1

Whether "it" is plural or not has no bearing on anything, because "it" is an object, not the subject. And in fact whether the subject "I" is plural or not makes no difference either, because the conjugated verb in the sentence is the helper verb can (which, being one of the many "special" verbs in English, actually ...


0

Well, I would prefer to say: "Can you call me after having lunch, please?" Or "Could you call me after you have finished your lunch, please?"


1

They're both grammatically correct, but the important things are "What is your context?" and "What do you want to express?" I have not eaten since breakfast. Imply that maybe someone asks you to have some meal right now and you want to. You suppose to terminate the activity(state) "not eaten" now. I have not been eating since ...


0

I agree with @D.Nelson, although I have never heard the explanation before... The only true example I could find used somewhere was in "Jumanji" the movie: Suspect will often leave something behind. which matches the 'emphasis on characteristics of (a type) of person.' However, in most of the examples, I still get a feeling that there is more ...


0

I don't think there are any subjunctives here. Habitual 'be' Habitual "be" or invariant "be" is associated particularly with, but not exclusively with, African-American English - see https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/180966/60894 and https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/invariant-be Habitual "be" is also often seen in memes, especially ...


5

Here you have one of the synthetic forms of the Subjunctive Mood - the Present Subjunctive of the verb "to be". It can be traced to the Old English period when the Subjunctive Mood was chiefly expressed by synthetic forms. In Old English the Subjunctive Mood had a special set of inflections, different from those of the Indicative. In course of ...


-1

Eg : in a novel I looked at Harry. He looked great. ( why? because) He was wearing his new suit. ‘ he had been wearing’ is clumsy and difficult to use : the time span would need to be cut by another action. The last time I saw him he was wearing jeans but when I saw him just before we left - he looked great - he was wearing a crisp white shirt and a new ...


2

In your N.1 there is a form of the Active Voice. "Open" is a Subject Complement. N.2 is a Passive Voice construction where the Past Participle of the verb "to choose" is a part of a compound verbal predicate. Its active form will be: "They have chosen John to play football...". "Have been + ING" is, to put it simpler, ...


0

The most likely explanation is that this sentence is part of a narrative relating to things that happened in, say, 1953. At that time, he was planning to go to university to study architecture, and somebody might have said: In 1955, he will study architecture. Writing now about what happened in 1953, we are talking about the past, but his studying ...


0

Have read so you presently understand. Whereas if you understood reading would not clarify understanding


3

Harry looked great. He had been wearing his new suit. To me those sentences imply that Harry had stopped wearing his new suit at the time he was seen to be looking great. The past perfect continuous puts the wearing in the past of another event that is in the speaker's past, and the only event referred to is the time he was seen. Compare Harry looked great....


Top 50 recent answers are included