New answers tagged

0

To be refers to the goal. To become implies the process of reaching the goal. For example: To be a life guard, you have to be a good swimmer. To become a life guard, you have to train hard. The first example specifies the requirement. The second example tells you how to achieve it. So a child might say: I want to be a good person But a bad ...


0

Could they ask their teacher: "Could you play it again please?" Of course they can. I don't see why not. To me, this is perfectly idiomatic. But how children ask this really depends on their understanding of the language and their age, I guess. If they are too young, they may just say "again". They could also say: "Could you replay it, please?" And ...


0

Your English teacher is right that "Take it with yourself." isn't idiomatic. But I don't think it is because of the verbs "take" and "bring", because we can say: "Take one for yourself too if you want." "We nearly brought ourselves to tears with our sad stories." "I can bring it myself." It may be that it is the preposition "with" that causes ...


1

Sure you can. Nearly all prepositional phrases are optional and can be omitted if the context makes the meaning clear, or the information that would be in the phrase isn't needed.


0

Yes. It is possible. You can say: could you please explain in detail? Could you please explain further? I attached a link which shows how explain can be used in different ways https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/explain


0

It is not the reflexive pronoun, but the pronoun along with "with" that is not so used. You want wine at the party? Then bring it yourself. I am not hauling the table for him. He needs to take it himself. The above and many similar constructions are valid and perfectly natural speech. But i can't think of many cases where "with yourself" would be ...


0

When the verb "break" refers to a record, it is normally used in a transitive way. Thus one normally says that a record "will be broken" (or has been broken) or that "X will break the record". However, this is the kind of use where English tends to be flexible. Nouns get used as verbs, verbs as nouns, either as adjectives, and verbs are used intransitivly ...


-1

Actually both are usable but the mostly used fluent way of doing it will be "not to < verb >" I moved slowly, not to wake my parents. Because what you are not trying to do is waking your parents.


0

I think your understanding is correct. In most cases "I am going to" indicates something already planned, "I will" suggests a decision just made. Example 1: Person A: "Hey, could you send this letter for me as soon as possible?" Person B: "Okay, I'll post it this afternoon." - this sounds correct. Person B: "Okay, I'm going to post it this afternoon." - ...


0

I believe that numbers 3, 5 and 6 are correct. 3: allow + pronoun + to + infinitive: It allows me to do something. For example we can say: 'I like music. It allows me to relax' 5: allow + noun: It allows something. We can say: 'I like music. It allows relaxation' 6: allow + noun + verb: It allows something to be done. And here: 'When we get paid, it ...


1

Neither of your suggested sentences are correct. Your spelling/grammar checker is wrong on this occasion. I need a friend who will give importance to me. I need a friend who will importance me. We don't use "importance" (which is a measure of how important something/someone is) in this way. Correct expressions would be: I need a friend who is ...


0

It has been two hours since I left LA. This is the correct one. Because your leaving is not relevant to the present time. You left LA. The action is finished. It has been two hours because still you are living in this period of time. Even though after 3 years passed you should use: It has been 3 years since I left LA.


1

There are two slightly different meanings that are possible with "agree" I agree to help (I "consent", or I will help) I agree with helping (I think helping is a good idea for other people too) You could mean the opposite of the second meaning, in which case Everyone would disagree with helping criminals. However it may be better to use "nobody"...


1

Although disagree normally functions as the opposite of agree, disagree can't be used with a to- infinitive in the way you can use agree. "Everyone would agree to help." is good English, but (surprisingly, I guess) "Everyone would disagree to help." isn't correct. A close equivalent in meaning might be: "Everyone would decline to help."


0

The correct one is: The only thing he does is translate a book. ‘Translating’ is a present participle and should be used to convey what he is doing at that specific moment; it should not be used whilst describing what he does.


1

In your example: "He has come to see if I am okay" I would think he is still there. But you could also say: "he has come to see if I am okay several times" this week, this month, whatever. In that case it doesn't mean he is still there, it is a different use of the present perfect. The week hasn't ended yet and you are considering time until now. If you say ...


0

In the context you describe 'fall off' and 'come off' have the same meaning. Their connotations are not quite identical, however. Consider the example of someone on a mailing list. If they do not respond to mail shots from that source, it is quite possible that their name will be removed from the mailing list. That is, they 'fall off' the list, not so much ...


1

Laser (or LASER) is an acronym (initials pronounced as a word) of "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". It resembles, but is not, a noun for a person or thing that does an action, of the type formed by the action verb followed by 'er' (e.g. heater, killer, banker, burner, etc). People, especially those working with laser equipment, ...


0

Correct variants include: ...ensure that accurate records be kept. ...ensure that accurate records are kept. ...ensure that accurate records will be kept. Other variants such as "were kept," "have been kept," would also be correct. The infinitive form (...records be kept) is more distant and theoretical such as describing a legal requirement for ...


0

Has seen means that the event (seeing) started and ended at least once before now. This statement compares the past to the present. The event happened at Time A, it is now Time B and we are talking about the present (Time B). Had seen means that the event (seeing) started and ended in the past at least once before a second, more recent, time or event in the ...


2

In US English, I consider "availed myself of the opportunity" to be correct, idiomatic, and current. This includes variations such as "he availed himself of the chance to buy a discounted ticket." The meaning here is to CHOOSE to take an action, where the action is not available to everyone, or where the action is available for a limited time. I would ...


Top 50 recent answers are included