While your example:
He came down on me on the argument I made against her.
would I think be understood, I don't think it is the usual way that idiom would be employed. More likely would be:
He came down on me about the argument I made against her.
He came down on me over the argument I made against her.
He came down on me for the argument I ...
In American English, the quarterfinals are the third-to-last round of a single-elimination tournament. Most team sports have two teams oppose each other in each match, with one winner and one loser. Before the quarterfinals, there are 8 teams remaining in the tournament. After the quarterfinals, there are 4 teams remaining.
If there are no byes, the ...
"Makes the pre-quarterfinals" certainly looks much better. The hyphen that they used in the original article is perfectly fine (as Edward Barnard has pointed out in the comments), but "makes in" does look a lot more awkward than "makes the".
It is very possible that the author of the article made a mistake, since articles about new events are often written ...
Both are correct and mean the same thing.
Regardless of whether the "as if" clause uses a Past or Present tense verb form, the actual reference is to a hypothetical situation (a "non-existent" alternative to the present, not to the past or future). But this is an interesting example where usage has changed significantly over time...
I really don't think ...
Both forms are correct though we see the first form too often.
Here the second form is preferable because it may mean that he really owns the whole earth, which is impossible for any human being.
In certain cases both the forms may be correct. For example, he speaks as if he is rich (probably he may be rich). He speaks as if he was rich means he is not ...
Both are correct depending on the tense.
Belonged is past tense and means he owned the earth before, but not necessarily that it belongs to him now.
Belongs is present tense and not necessarily that he owned the earth before. Or it could mean he owned the earth before and he still owns it.
I usually see things like this as small-type footnotes "B-service is offered under license from A-company". Sometimes, there might also be a similar statement of the relationship between A-Company and B-Company "B-Company is affiliated with/an affiliate of/a [wholly-owned] subsidiary of A-Company".
Well, your first and third examples pass muster for me as grammatical and reasonably natural, especially the simpler first one. You could also say "not in how she looks" or "not so much to look at but..." or "not to look at but..." (and many others) etc.
There are a lot of ways to express this idea, especially around the secondary idea of "thinking like"-- ...
There is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence
Last night I dreamed I was a Sheikh on the 169th floor of Burj Khalifa.
except that I am inclined to think that "Sheikh" should not be capitalized when it is not associated with any person's name or specific geographic title.
You can consider that a participle verb form such as "standing" or "...
There are four basic types of phrasal verbs.
To bring up falls into two categories and can be used thusly:
- I brought up my dog.
- I brought it up.
- I brought the dog up.
Please notice the position of the pronoun it standing for the dog. If you use the pronoun, it cannot go at the end.
bring up means ...
Both are correct. It depends on when the drowning might have taken place. The original sentence can be understood to mean "... you would [now be] drowning ..." or "... you would drown [once you started jogging] ...". Your version is what would have happened in the past, and could possibly be worded "If your jogging clothes had not been made ..."
While both ...
I find but I didn't more natural.
I think you are making the assumption that should have brought is perfect, and so the negation should also be perfect (and use have rather than did).
This seems plausible, but is wrong. In the infinitive, have brought is the only way to form a past infinitive, and is not specifically perfect - it could be, but it doesn't ...
You should split this into two sentences
It's very cold here. I should have brought my woolen clothes but I didn't.
or add a semicolon.
It's very cold here; I should have brought my woolen clothes but I didn't.
This is quite correct, and I prefer it to "... but I haven't". Both are correct English, there is no requirement for the tense in two ...
Like should, the verb ought to does not have a past form. It is only used with reference to the present and the future. Ought to + have + past participle of main verb is used to express regret that something was not done or to reproach someone for doing or not doing something. If you wish to express a general truth, use the present, e.g. when you are young ...
You are right that "the greatest" is correct.
This article explains about comparatives and superlatives. Some adjectives (as the article says, mainly shorter ones) form their comparative and superlative with suffixes (-er and -est), and some (longer words) use more and most.
"The most beautiful island in the world."
"The greatest story ...
There are two ways of expressing this:
the most great
Either of the above phrases is possible. Most great is not wrong, but the more common, and shorter, is simply greatest.
Only one thing (or group of things) can be the greatest. Combining the two words to say most greatest is redundant and, while understandable, would be ...
In the end.
This refers to a time period. As Jio points out in this answer, it's pretty much synonymous with finally.
The Collins dictionary defines it as - the final result of a series of events, or what is your final conclusion after considering all the relevant facts.
At the end.
Refers to a position. This doesn't just need to be a ...
I don't understand the meaning of to in the bold part.
In fact to indicates the relation ship between the notice and the judgement
to preposition (CONNECTION) in connection with Link to C.E.D.
What was their response to your query?
What was their response in connection with your query?
Let try some substitutes
Last week the Supreme ...
the prof. said: "You will have five minutes to answer the question."
shall means the same of will but old-fashioned.
May I have your name? equals what's your name?
she may have a bf already I said to my fellow. == Sha maybe has a bf or not, 50% respectively.
in all examples above, May Will Shall are model verbs and Have is just a verb.
I would die before I lied.
I would die before I lie.
No: subjunctive clauses are headed by a plain form of the verb, e.g. "I insisted [that he meet her]". But "lied" is past tense so it can't be subjunctive.
In any case, only a very few prepositions, like "if", "unless", "lest" etc. license subjunctives, so neither of your examples qualify.
Merriam-Webster gives this as definition 1b of "stock" (adjective):
"commonly used or brought forward". That dictionary doesn't limit its usage to any particular topic.
Probably answers and excuses are things that are things often "kept in stock". Indeed, Merriam-Webster's example is about a "stock answer".
But applied to a question, "stock" is ...