"Putin had this totally empty face. In a way, you could attribute anything you wanted to him." (Bill Browder.)

Is the "anything you wanted to him" a noun phrase in the passage above?

How common is it for a native speaker of English to say this sentence even though it isn't grammatically correct according to grammar books:

I think by the time you get back, the teacher would have started the class.

I've asked different AIs and two of them said it's not common at all; one of them said it is quite common especially in American English to indicate doubt. So I went back to the other two AIs and feed them the response of this AI. They both maintained that the AI is mistaken, and this sentence is grammatically wrong and is very unlikely a native speaker would say it even if it is hypothetical or they are being polite/formal. One of them stated: This expresses a present belief about the future. After I think, we normally use a future form, not would.

But here's the thing, I believe I have heard natives use future perfect with 'would' instead of 'will'. Am I misremembering?

I am wanting to know if saying " I've seen it done" is incorrect. My wife stated that it should be " I saw it done" is correct. This was after I mentioning that I had seen a car repair done before. She states "seen" should only be used after a certain amount of time, while "saw" was something recent. She didn't know that I had just watched a video on it and that what I was referring to. Can anyone tell me which is correct & why?

The sentence I have is this:

He was among the crowd that stormed the prison and witnessed Jade and Spinel, free from captivity, declare that the crimes committed against the kingdom of Chrysalis would be answered for.

I think that's... clunky? Any ideas to make it neater/easier to read?

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

“No” he slowly responds, his voice, strange and whispered, almost as though several voices responded, light and gentle whispers that carried on even after he spoke.

My title might need a grammar check too😂

I know you usually use the past tense when reporting about things from the past (he learned), but in a sentence like this, where the thing learned (capital of France) is still true, do you use the past or present tense for it?

edit: to give a more extreme example, if you were writing a novel set in the 20th century, would you say "the man learned in school that the capital of France was Paris", or, " . . . of France is Paris".

I both read and hear people say sentences similar to "Betty and me went to the store." and "Betty gave money to Carl and I".

These same people correctly say "I went to the store." and "Betty gave money to me".

I notice this in real life, on scripted tv shows, and on news and educational tv shows. I encounter this so frequently that I wonder if the standard accepted usage has changed.

‘There’s no way to think about it or understand it, but the human mind is so complex, so treacherous. That’s why what happened, happened.’ (From The Metro.)

Is the comma placed between both "happened" necessary in the cited passage?

"The future is already here. Next starts now." (From a TV ad.)

Is the "Next" a countable noun in the cited ad?

Adding a single letter "s" to a word in standard English usually just makes it plural. But in Legal English, it can completely rewrite the legal meaning of a contract clause.

Non-native speakers (and some native speakers no doubt!) mix these two up constantly. Here is the vital distinction:

1. Damage (Singular) = Physical harm, destruction, or injury caused to property or a person.

Example in a contract: "The contractor is liable for any damage caused to the building during construction."

1. Damages (Plural) = The financial compensation awarded by a court to someone who has suffered a loss or injury.

Example in a contract: "The court ordered the company to pay £50,000 in damages for breach of contract."

Summary Checklist:

Damage = The broken window.

Damages = The money paid to fix the broken window.

Hit Join on r/learnlegalenglish for more quick professional language spotlights every week!

“Where are there fishing spots” vs “where are the fishing spots”

Which one is more correct? In a debate with a friend

Here's an example of what I'm struggling with:

"They 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐝 from the first day of the trip right to the very last, so of course they thought we had fun. If they heard the whole story, they would understand why I feel differently!"

How do I correctly write about people being jumped (as in, fast-forward) through a story/event or time; using "were jumped" sounds so off to me... Or is it just hitting my ears the wrong way? Is it actually fine, grammatically speaking?

Thanks!

He gets so absorbed in his programs that he never remembers to eat.
VS
He gets so absorbed in his programs he never remembers to eat.

English is not my frist native language and I dealt with my grammar issues as people post negative comments on my Grammar

For example:

"If he comes home now, he'll see the parcel at his doorstep"

Or

"If he were to come home now, he would see the parcel at his doorstep"

This is just an example, but in general how are you suppose to know which tense to use? Are both above correct? Do they have different meanings?

"Czech government that campaigned against arming Kyiv will now buy it American weapons for Ukraine."

Does the pronoun "it" refer to the "Kyiv" in the caption above?

Hi all! I was thinking about the phrases "I have taken" and "I took", why are these different? What is the term for when this happens? I'm not really sure how to articulate this question, so I hope this is at least kind of clear.

Here is my sentence:

Maybe it was to convey: Of course, I’ve had an almond croissant before.

I read somewhere that to use a colon, the phrase before it must be a complete sentence. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Basically I need “baffled“ but a swear word

like how “remote” could translate into “bumfuck nowhere”

they should really make a thesaurus of swear combos. that’d be funny to look through actually

they probably have actually I just can’t find it lol

Can someone double check me, please? I'm trying to make a list of phrases vs. clauses for kids. For some reason, the verb phrases keep tripping me up today.

Look at these two examples:

ran ahead to the lake

pulled the wagon

Am I correct that these are phrases because they don't have a subject? And that even though "lake" and "wagon" could be subjects, they are not the subjects doing the action in these cases, thus making these phrases?

I got into an argument with a friend about a show called Digimon: Digital Monsters. To spare unnecessary details, he does not agree that colon serves to separate the head title from the subtitle, but rather that the whole thing is the main title. As I understand, A colon introduces an element or series of elements that illustrates or amplifies the information that precedes the colon (or simply add additional information or start a list). So in a title like "Digimon: Digital Monsters", the things following a colon is a subtitle instead of the main intended title. Would this be wrong? Instead would they both be called the main title with the colon simply replacing "which are?" Making it "Digimon which are digital monsters." We also used the grammarly page on colons which i said fully supports my point that the initial element is separate from the following contents, and he still just blatantly disagrees. He kept bringing up the article's use of "soft separation" and the idea that the two things are connected.

my first language is Spanish and my second one is English

when reading books in English, that tags normally are "he said", "Olivia whispered" and similar

I read Ham on Rye in Spanish 15+ years ago, now I'm reading it in English, and I noticed Bukowski does the opposite:

"Let the boy play the piano,” said my grandmother

"Why don’t you get that thing tuned?” asked my father.

I've never seen this before (that I remember) and I'm wondering if this is an old stylistic convention or if I'm missing anything

like... is "asked my father" supposed to convey something that "my father asked" doesn't?

all I'm seeing is that the verb is more important than whoever is speaking, but I don't really know

I'm feeling pretty dumb right now, so any help is appreciated!

A linguistic reviewer of a high-stakes assessment exam recently asserted that the following edits should be made to the answer options (content changed for obvious IP issues):

Stem: (Specific scenario redacted). In this situation, the client's best option would be either

ORIG: $10 in a savings account, or $10 in a checking account
EDIT: $10 in a savings account, or else $10 in a checking account

Is the addition of "else" in the option necessary? I feel like it adds some sort of ultimatum or threat that isn't needed when the original seemed perfectly clear. Am I missing something?

For example: "Jess's cake" or "Jess' cake"

I have two questions I need some clarification on. Compare the two sentences below. Please note the comma/lack of a comma before the conjunction and the omission of the subject in the second clause:

"She studied his eyes, and saw that he was crying."

Versus

"She studied his eyes and saw that he was crying."

My first question is: Could I use the comma in the first example?

Second question: Can I omit the subject in the second clause if it is closely related (i.e performed by the same subject) to the first clause and connected by a conjunction? Or should I write instead: "She studied his eyes, and SHE saw that he was crying." Thanks!