As you know there are dozens of phrasal verbs with "get". "Get by" implies "making do in difficult circumstances", but it is not really used when talking about relationships with people.
Instead, I would use "get along"
get along (phrasal verb): 3 : to be or remain on congenial terms
I had to find a way to get along with my college roommate, ...
In this context for your example, I would choose a phrase like "make it work with him while...", or "stay with him while..." or "manage while".
(I think you may actually be misperceiving just slightly the sense of "got by on very little money"-- it's not quite about persisting while something is lacking, it's more about making do with what you have, or ...
Your meaning will be understood, but that usage is not common.
If you're trying to emphasize that you're staying with the person, you could use "stick with."
I don't love him at all, but I have to stick with him at least while my children grow up a bit more.
If you're trying to emphasize that you haven't found anyone better, you could use "make do with."...
According to the Collins Dictionary, it's perfectly fine and grammatically correct.
on trial [phrase]
If someone is on trial, they are being tried in a court of law.
He is currently on trial accused of serious assault.
on trial [phrase]
If you say that someone or something is on trial, you mean that they
are in a situation where people ...
"Is on trial" is the common phrase and perfectly correct. The passive "is put" is odd in the example you give, using the present tense. The verb "put" indicates a single act, but you want to talk about an ongoing state. You could "put" in the past tense:
John is on trial for murder
John was put on trial for murder three weeks ago.
Either is fine. It depends on the exact circumstances.
As your example is written, using "chose" (past tense), this is the implied sequence of events:
You (the audience) are going to meet a director
This director is going to describe how to produce a play, using, as a model, a play she already produced.
As part of this description, the director ...
We're going to meet a director. She'll describe the whole process of producing a play, including how she chose the actor.
I believe whoever wrote this either made a mistake or it could also mean that the director is going to talk about a specific play and how she chose the actor, assuming for this play the actor was already chosen in the past.
No, these are not correct. I'm not sure exactly what meaning you are trying to put across but the closest I can think of is:
They were found in a bad position
They found themselves in a bad position
(or similarly with "he" or "she")
It depends on who is in a bad position- the original subject, which you mention is "people", or some new subject.
In the first case, you would want to say "They found themselves in a bad position." Notice you are basically duplicating the "them" pronoun twice, once as the subject of the verb "found" and again as its object.
In the second case, you would ...
The title makes sense if you imagine they skipped "that" before France:
Emmanuel Macron squirms as Donald Trump orders that France leaves
The court ordered that he leaves Antigua on Thursday. (Jamaica Observer)
You beat someone up.
You beat someone up badly.
You would not say to someone: Get out of here, or you will get beaten (up) badly [by me].
You would say: Get out of here, or I will beat you up!
That is what you tell someone else: He got badly beaten (up) by those guys.
Phrasal verbs with "up" usually indicates "completeness". So "beaten up" means "completely beaten".
So the meaning of "beaten up" is pretty similar to "beaten badly".
You can also move the adverb around: "He was badly beaten". Anyhow using the adverb "badly" is rather more like written language.
It is just about possible that there is an ambiguity in ...
To my ears (British English), beat alone in this sense is not very common, and suggests either historical ("The gang ambushed the riders and beat them") or quasi-official ("He was beaten by his captors") action, or formal language. In all ordinary use, I would expect beat up (both active and passive).
So to me, your first example is completely natural, ...
"...you should never run out of steam (pursuing such an important goal)."
If you run out of steam, you suddenly lose the energy or interest to continue doing what you are doing:
David seems to be running out of steam.
I decided to paint the bathroom ceiling but ran out of steam halfway through.
How To Reach Your Goal When You Are Running Out Of ...
"get/getting cold feet" is a rather specific saying, and you probably shouldn't try to extrapolate too much from it.
A more natural way to write that last sentence would be: "Don't ever let yourself get cold feet." but I don't think it fits the scenario very well: "cold feet" is more related to avoiding doing something specific. The classic use is prior to ...
Because none of the others result in a grammatical sentence.
Gilbert Stuart is considered by most art critics that he was greatest portrait painter North America contains.
"that he was greatest" does not work, neither does "is considered ... that"
Gilbert Stuart is considered by most art critics as he was greatest portrait painter North America ...
I think you actually want to shift the focus here.
Forgetting where you came from
The issue you want to emphasize is not the joining of the community, but the loss of the values and identity that someone learned in their original culture. In English, we're more explicit about this, since Western culture doesn't generally view adapting to the culture around ...
probably not, but it does depend on context
The phrase "has to be" implies 'compulsion' - i.e. that there is a reason for the topic to be interesting. It also may be used of either the present or the future. For example, said of a topic you are studying:
I know you chose this topic for your thesis, so this topic has to be interesting for you.
is about ...
How have... is a question whereas How... is a statement.
How have health care monitoring devices helped in changing your life?
Is asking the audience to answer. Whereas:
How health care monitoring devices have helped in changing your life.
Might be the title of the paper in which you discuss the findings.
Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have
died of conformity in our lifetime.
-- Jacob Bronowski
I think the reward for conformity is everyone likes you but yourself.
-- Rita Mae Brown
I would suggest the phrase “losing your identity”. While it appears to be going out of style, the US at least has considered assimilation and blending in a good thing. It’s the great melting pot. So, those terms are going to be considered positive by some people.
Losing your identity, forgetting where you came from or forgetting your roots, are all seen ...
“Drinks” is a plural noun; “drink” would be the singular form. You would say “The drinks at his party were very good.” If something is part of a party, you say it is at the party (not in). Since “drinks” is plural, you use “were”, not “was”.
Now that you know “drinks” is plural you should be able to answer the first question. “was” is used for a singular ...
Following up on a word mentioned by Andrew, you could consider homogenizing.
To homogenize something is to make it homogeneous: completely the same throughout, with no parts that are different from one another. It can be done to milk, for instance; all the little bits of fat get mixed in, producing a uniform liquid from which the fat doesn't separate.
"Assimilation" can work here:
assimilation (n): The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture.
Assimilation is a neutral term for a process that can be expressed either as a positive or a negative. To those in the wider culture, it may seem a good result to see some minority culture integrated into the ...
There is no really common single verb for this.
Two common expressions are:
Lighten the mood.
Make a joke of.
They are also frequently used together.
Another guy tried to lighten the mood, and made a joke out of the situation by replying to the whole group that . . .
I don't have a simple verb to replace your blank, but consider going native:
Fitting in is one thing, but going native is a totally different thing.
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
disapproving or humorous
If a person who is in a foreign country goes native, they begin to live and/or dress like the people who live there.
I assume you may be confusing this with the indirect object in sentences such as
I ordered him to get me a drink.
I taught him to read Chinese
The verb "to report" does not take an indirect object like this. Instead "him" is the direct object, meaning the thing being reported. You have to use the preposition "to" to indicate the other party:
In the case of "I reported him to be safe", he is safe. "To be safe" is an adjectival phrase which modifies 'him'. You could say the same thing like this:
"I reported him safe."
That might look a little more ambiguous at first, but note that 'safe' is just an adjective--it is performing the exact same grammatical function as 'to be safe' in the original ...
I reported him to be safe.
means that the speaker has reported some other person (presumably identified in previous content) to be safe. It corresponds with example B in the question. A similar statement corresponding with example A would be:
I reported myself to be safe
I reported myself as safe
This could be shorten to "I reported myself ...
I’m an AmE native speaker and have never heard the word humorize. You cannot use pun as a verb in this sentence - pun does not take an object and there is no wordplay here (puns are jokes that involve double meanings or a similar-sounding word replacing another - see Wikipedia).
Judging by the context, I think you could say another guy tried to defuse the ...
Another guy tried to "cheer up" the situation and replied to the whole group with the following message "why did you call me out to do xyz" ?
cheer up (someone) = to feel encouraged and happier, or to cause someone to feel this way:
She plays music to cheer her husband up.
Cheer up! Things aren’t really that bad.
Like be used to, be supposed to is an idiom that has become a fixed phrase, and in many speakers' minds and voices, single words -- useta and sposta, with their own individual and very idiomatic syntax.
This is new syntax. In both of these constructions, the question of whether it's passive or active is irrelevant, since that's entirely a matter of ...
"supposed to become" is correct, and as the answer by FumbleFingers explains, means "was intended to become". However, the statement that "This is a special use of the verb to suppose that only occurs in passive contexts" is not correct. It can be used in the active voice as well:
I am supposed to prepare the food before I pour the drinks.
You are ...
It is extremely easy: the s or es is only ever in the third person singular of a verb in the present tense, except the verb be.
Third person is: It/He/She.
Structure of types of sentences:
Declarative: It sounds right.
Negative: It does not sound right. [doesn't]
Interrogative: Does it sound right?
It follows the rule except you have to know how to ...
That would be because "be-" is a prefix that is almost always added to verbs and makes nouns and verbs. It means something along the lines of "cause".
It is, by no means, a recent one, so you're bound to come across examples where the verb is no longer distinguishable and doesn't exist in modern English, as is the case with "believe". The most common ...
1: Harry was supposed to become an earl
It was intended that Harry should become an earl
This is a special use of the verb to suppose that only occurs in passive contexts (where the actual "agent" doing the "supposing" is unspecified). But hopefully you can see how the more common meaning to suppose = assume / think / guess stretches through to ...
Yes, it is possible and once valid, but this usage has long gone out of use. If you dig into Middle English and Early Modern English texts you might find many examples of similar constructions. It is considered so obsolete that you probably won't even find this usage in major dictionaries.
The OED has several relevant entries.
To affect or strike with ...
It would be a very unusual construction. As a native English speaker, it sounds highly unusual.
Such sentences are written in the passive voice. "It bothers me" means the thing (it) is doing the action of bothering. For some verbs, such as "bothers" and "amuses," we find it grammatically valid to say they do these actions. It is considered reasonable ...
The present perfect continuous is used in various ways, but in this context the expected meaning is "occurring for some time, including right now".
(Up to the present moment, and ongoing) Something terrible has been happening to my daughter and her husband.
This makes it odd to use with the past tense, because we can't reconcile something known in the ...
You can still use to come up, there's nothing inherently one-sided to this phrasal verb that the first person can only be the object or something.
When everybody was dancing, I came up to her and after greetings started talking to her and fortunately we made quick friends.
(note that I have changed 'were' to 'was'; 'everybody' is singular even though it ...
Short answer: It (eventually) makes sense, and it's probably grammatically correct.
Long answer: It's a terrible sentence that requires multiple readings to comprehend. As you have been told, this passive form of "go", to mean "travel", is rarely (if ever) used. Example:
We went the long way.
is standard, but:
The long way was gone by us.
Idioms: to have a long way to go, to go the long way [round something, through something, etc.].
There was a long way to go before getting to the town.
And this was the long way, which had to be gone by us.
Because we were determined not to be seen by anybody. END
It is grammatical. However, if it were my writing, I would use:
And this was ...
Yes, you can use lot of different words here, though as @Lambie points out, the for in your example is not needed/normal.
I am writing to ask ...
I am writing to say ...
I am writing to let you know ...
I am writing to query whether ...
Both forms are grammatical and have the same structure in terms of parts of speech. Your second ordering ("Whose is this painting?") is antiquated; you should use the first ordering ("Whose painting is this?") in modern speech and writing.
"Have been waiting" is a verb in the present perfect progressive tense, also called the present perfect continuous tense. This tense is formed by combining "has been" or "have been" with the present participle of a verb. In this case, "waiting" is the present participle of "to wait". The present perfect progressive/continuous tense is normally used to ...
As someone from the west coast of the USA, it doesn't sound right to me. I've never heard 'go' used that way, but this could be perfectly fine in other places. 'Bet' is what I'd use here.
However, the phase (do) you wanna go? is a kind of slang for a challenge; a bet that 'you' can't defeat 'me' in whatever activity matches the context. This might be what ...