Because so-called long vowels (a, e, i, o, and u, when pronounced "like their letter name") and digraphs do not require a doubled consonant to form the participle.
Compare hating or waiting with batting, for example. Or plan and plane, which become, respectively, planning and planing.
The English language has no universal rule for when to double a consonant
before the suffix "-ing".
As evidence that there is no universal rule,
consider the word "travel." It ends consonant-vowel-consonant,
but both the forms "travelling" and "traveling" are widely used.
Writers of US English usually write "traveling"
(but sometimes write "travelling"), ...
The guiding principle should be don't use Past Perfect unless you really have to.
The uncertainty occurred after the asking - chronologically, and in the narrative sequence of OP's text. That's what normally happens when you report a series of events...
I did this. Then I did that.
It's grammatically possible, but completely pointless in most contexts, ...
In this case you are talking about the option you choose in a game. You could read the sentence as
The option scissors cuts the option paper
Scissors cuts paper
So while "scissors" is plural and you would always say "scissors cut paper", in this case the word refers to an option within the game (singular) rather then the actual item.
The word eating "eat" is "vowel + vowel + consonant". It is not "consonant + vowel + consonant", therefore rule 2 does not apply.
Only the general rule of "just add -ING" applies.
to sleep => sleeping
to eat => eating
Opinions vary on this one. Here is a quote from Garner's Modern American Usage that explains why it should be didn't used to.
It shouldn't be written didn't use to, although this point has
stirred up controversy among usage pundits. The argument goes that didn't
supplies the past tense, and the main verb that follows should be in the present ...
No, take is an irregular verb:
Its past tense form is took:
I took an exam yesterday.
Its past participle form is taken:
I have taken an exam.
*Taked is nonstandard. You may occasionally hear it from young children or in certain nonstandard dialects, but if you're learning Standard English you should not say it yourself.
It is a very old use, no longer used in Standard English (whatever that is), but still to be found in many dialects.
The a- is originally a worn-down form of the preposition on. In OE a standard way of expressing a state was as a preposition phrase with on—on slæpe, for instance, "on sleep" = "in a state of sleep". We have quite a few common ...
This is called the imperative.
The imperative is used to give an order to someone.
John, turn on the light.
Stig, eat your breakfast.
Maya, wait a minute, please.
With the imperative, you are using what's called the bare infinitive form of a verb. (Source) That is why you do not use the present tense of the verb and add an "s". If you did that,...
John, turn on the light.
This is an imperative. You're telling the listener what to do. In imperatives, the subject is generally taken as an implied "you":
John, you turn on the light.
The verb doesn't change form to agree with you, though; in an imperative the verb always appears in its plain form, which is the same form of the verb as the ...
This is a very common mistake!
So, don't worry. Here is the cure.
Ask yourself which one makes more sense: "look forward to it" or "look forward to do it"?
Chances are you know that "look forward to it" sounds more natural, because you've seen or you've heard others use it that way before. And, yes, with look forward to, you need hearing from you (NOT hear ...
Both are acceptable (yes, I know I'm the one who said you were wrong), but used will induce fewer corrections :)
English Grammar Today has this to say on this exact topic:
The negative of used to is most commonly didn’t use(d) to. Sometimes
we write it with a final -d, sometimes not. Both forms are common, but
many people consider ...
Yes, the headline is correct.
You can use the word "build" as a noun to mean "building project". This headline is saying that the project to build the stadium was the safest ever. In other words, very few people were hurt while building the stadium.
If you said, "safest Olympic Stadium ever built", that's also correct, but it would mean that the stadium ...
The reference is to the US tv show 'The Big Bang Theory', and to one of its main characters Dr Sheldon Cooper. He speaks excellent if highly idiosyncratic English. I listened carefully to a video and he does say 'cuts'. While grammatically 'scissors cut paper' is correct, explanations on the internet of the standard game 'rock-paper-scissors' and the Big ...
Short answer: It's always incorrect because it is. It's just something that no native speaker of English would ever choose to say, to express any particular thought.
Long answer: It is possible to conceive of a situation where "I am been" is grammatically correct according to the rules of English. However, it would never be used as such, probably (I think) ...
I thought I'd add this as well, just for those who are inferring that "Here Be Dragons" is an inference on the illiteracy of the scholars during the middle ages. I've separated it out from the other answer because it's not a direct answer to the question.
Anyway, "Here Be Dragons" is actually just an example of Old English (it is invalid modern English)- in ...
Haven't and didn't are different time-wise, as you have guessed correctly. Haven't refers to the past up until now. So if you haven't done something, you haven't done it for a specific period of time (day, month, ever, etc.)
Didn't refers to a specific point of time that has already passed. For example, if it is 7 PM, you could say "I didn't eat dinner at 6"...
This is a tricky question, because right now the language (at least in its US version) is in the middle of changing all the rules.
Let’s move from the easy parts to the hard ones.
Two generations ago I was taught that you must use may when speaking of permission: May I have a cookie? — Yes, you may. That rule is dead now; everybody says can and nobody ...
Are they still teaching the old 'long/short' vowels? If so, here's the rule:
If the syllable before the /-ing/ is pronounced with a 'long' vowel, leave the final consonant single (and delete any final silent /e/)
If it's pronounced with a 'short' vowel, double the final consonant.
It may help make this clearer if you explain that a vowel before a ...
"I am having a code" doesn't make sense, whereas "I have some code" does make sense.
"A code" might be used for, say, an identification code, which is unique, but "code" as used here more likely means "a piece of code" like a script, or a coherent block of computer instructions.
"Am having" implies that something is taking place over a span of (present) ...
In your question, you give examples where a verb is used together with another word, and the combination has some idiomatic meaning. These are commonly called phrasal verbs†.
For example, look at the definition given by Collins for the phrasal verb pick up. It gives a whopping sixteen senses! That's quite a few meanings for this ...
The motivation for the spelling rule (which the Woodward English site does not specify) is that we don't want adding "-ing" to change the length of the final vowel (the one before the consonant). A single vowel before a single consonant at the end of a word is usually short, but a single vowel before a single consonant before another vowel is usually long. ...
These are both correct. I would add, though, that I'm looking forward to our meeting sounds (to me, at least) more conversational (and a bit more genuine), whereas I look forward to our meeting is a bit more formal/polite. I would expect to find the I'm looking form in spoken language, and the I look form in writing (likely at the end of an email confirming ...
Multiple choice tests posted here are always very disheartening; the test-writers don't seem to have a great grasp of English grammar. The short answer is that you are right and the test is wrong.
The long answer is that both are acceptable, but that "would" is much more common.
"Would," as you said, introduces a hypothetical.
All animals would die ...
How should I properly translate them?
That depends on the nature of your translation.
If you are only trying to convey the sentiment of the statement, then I would simply figure out which verb is being used, and conjugate it in its modern form. So Aristotle's:
He who hath many friends hath none.
Can be rephrased as:
He who has many friends has ...
As J.R. says, singular or plural deserve will work equally well. The bare sentence may be parsed as either:
Only brave men deserve fair women.
Only a brave man deserves a fair woman.
There is, however, an overriding consideration. This line is a quotation from a poem by John Dryden, Alexander's Feast; or, the Power of Music.
'Twas at the royal ...
They are both correct but emphasize different aspects of the accustomization.
The first emphasizes the final state: you will be accustomed to it soon. I.e. at some point in the future (soon), you will find that you are used to it.
The second emphasizes the transition: you will become accustomed to it soon. I.e., you will soon undergo the transformation ...
It's more common to give the meaning of an acronym in singular form:
PGC stands for primordial germ cell.
If you've given this definition, it's obvious to readers that PGCs is the plural.
If you were to give the definition of "PGCs," you would still use the singular form of the verb:
PGCs stands for primordial germ cells.
This is because the subject ...