Best Of

@HailieJade, on the basis of its grammar, much can be seen as two different words:

1. a QUANTIFIER
2. an ADVERB

QUANTIFIERS such as _much, little, many ... _ are used before NOUNS in the same way as we use ARTICLES, DEMONSTRATIVES and POSSESSIVES

• much energy
• the energy
• that energy
• her energy

These QUANTIFIERS can be extended to form COMPARATIVE PHRASES

• as few as
• as much as

ADVERBS combine with CLAUSES

• I haven't travelled much

The also combine with other words to make ADVERBIAL PHRASES

• I haven't travelled very much

A COMPARATIVE PHASE can combine with an ADVERB and a CLAUSE to make an ADVERBIAL CLAUSE

• You may do it as often as you like
• They came as quickly as they could
• Your body stores energy as much as you need

In your examples you get the same meaning from

• much energy — QUANTIFIER
• as much as you need — COMPARATIVE ADVERBIAL

@richerich, I think the best starting point for your exploration may be the terms FINITE and NON-FINITE — because the term FINITE is used in older traditional grammars, and there is no conflict between traditional and modern grammars in what it means.

The NON-FINITE form of a verb are of three types

1. INFINITIVE

   • to-infinitive_ — e.g. _ I want to leave, It's time to leave, To leave will be a pleasure._
   • bare infinitive — e.g. I may leave, I saw her leave
   • perfect infinitive — e.g._ I except him to have left_

2. PAST PARTICIPLE (often passive in meaning)

   • We saw it left behind. _ Left alone, I shouted for help_

3. -ing-FORMS (called present participles or gerunds in older grammars)

   • 'present' — e.g. I hate leaving . Leaving the house, he met Jane. an excuse for leaving
   • perfect — e.g. She regrets having left. Having left the house early, I didn't see him. __
   • 'present' passive — e.g. I remember being left. Being left is not much fun. He's angry about being left
   • perfect passive — e.g. Having been left by the enemy, it became one of our guns

The FINITE forms of leave are:
ACTIVE
leave
left
is leaving
was leaving
has left
had left
has been leaving
had been leaving

PASSIVE
is left
was left
is being left
was being left
has been left
had been left

Two other PSSIVE forms are grammatical, but extremely rare
has been being left
had been being left

Other FINITE forms are possible when leave is combined with verbs like will or can.

@richierich

**"Arranging the preliminary events in chronological order proved to be the most efficient means of studying them." **

Running the risk of sounding stupid, I have to ask—what is the subject?

The subject of the whole sentence is the non-finite clause

Arranging the preliminary events in chronological order

The whole sentence is a finite clause, is so it is composed of

• a subject
  (see above)

• a finite verb form
  proved

• what in some terminology is the complement of the verb
  to be the most efficient means of studying them

This 'complement' in turn is composed of

• a non-finite verb form
  to be

• the 'complement' of the verb
  the most efficient means of studying them

This 'complement' in turn is composed of

• a noun phrase
  the most efficient means

• a postmodifier
  of studying them

This postmodifier is a prepositional phrase, which in turn is composed of

• a preposition
  of

• what in different terminologies may be called the 'complement' or the 'object' of the preposition
  studying them

So this sentence contains two long non-finite clauses

• arranging the preliminary events in chronological order
• to be the most efficient means of studying them

The second of these contains a third non-finite clause

• studying them

Non-finite clauses differ from finite clauses in two ways:
1. Taking do as example the possible verb forms are: doing, done, do, to do, to have done, having done.
2. Usually there is no subject.

Older grammar books don't recognise the term non-finite clause, but it's a very useful was of looking at structure. Apart from the two differences above, the structure of a non-finite clause is exactly the same as that of a finite clause.

Both types of clause are based on a verb form with the structure decided by the verb. For example

• If the verb is make, then there must be an object.
• If the verb is exist, then there can't be an object.
• If the verb is give, then there must be one object, and there may be two (direct object and indirect object)

Whether the clause is finite or non-finite the same adverbial elements may be added:

• Finite
  I'll come on Monday. I'll definitely come. I'll come when you've finished.

• Non-fiinite
  coming on Monday, definitely coming, coming when you've finished
  to come on Monday, to definitely come (not in formal writing), to come when you've finished.

Some grammar books define a subject according to its meaning of 'doer'. But it's useful to distinguish between an agent ('doer') and a grammatical subject. Quite often they are the same thing — but not always.

And some grammar books don't recognise the difference between a sentence and a clause.
A simple sentence may consist of just one finite clause — but not all sentences are simple. Old-fashioned grammar books use the terms compound and complex for sentences with more than one finite clause. Your sentence is just one finite clause, but within it there are three structures based on non-finite verb forms.

I realise that I'm using grammatical terms that you (and your teacher) are not used to. It may be possible to answer your question using old-fashioned traditional terms, but I think that the new terms make it much easier.

I'm sorry, @Ritsu, I didn't want to confuse you.

PAST PARTICIPLE is a term for a particular verb form, but the name can be confusing. Let's look at an IRREGULAR verb: take.

As you know, you have to learn three one-word forms for take
1. take
2. took
3. taken

Form Number 3 is used in different ways:

• after have — have taken, has taken, had taken, having taken, to have taken, will have taken may have taken etc.
  These are PERFECT forms

• after be — am taken, is taken, are taken, was taken, were taken, being taken, to be taken, will be taken, may be taken etc.
  These are PASSIVE forms

• without a verb before it — Nobody saw it taken. Taken with water, the drug acts quicckly.
  These are similar to CLAUSES inside SENTENCES:
  Nobody saw it when it was taken.
  When it is taken with water, the drug acts quickly,
  The clauses are also PASSIVE.

PAST PARTICIPLE isn't really a good term for forms like taken.

• It's often used with a PRESENT or FUTURE meaning — e.g. is taken, is being taking, will take, will be taking
• When it isn't in present or future forms its in PERFECT forms. And taken can't be used as PAST SIMPLE.
• Very often it's used with PASSIVE meaning.

That's why I said

That verb form could just as well be called a PASSIVE PARTICIPLE.

Now dedicate is REGULAR verb. So you know that there are just two one-word forms to learn
1. dedicate
2. dedicated

So when you find a verb form ending in -ed, you know it can be

• on its own after a SUBJECT — PAST SIMPLE e.g. I dedicated it to ...
• after have — PERFECT e.g. have dedicated, has dedicated, had dedicated, having dedicated, to have dedicated, will have dedicated may have dedicated etc.
• after be — PASSIVE e.g. am dedicated, is dedicated_, are dedicated_, was dedicated_, were dedicated_, being dedicated_, to be dedicated_, will be dedicated_, may be dedicated_ etc.
• on its own without a subject — like a PASSIVE CLAUSE e.g. Dedicated to Athene, the temple stood on the Acropolis.

With some verbs there's another possibility:

• The -ed form may be used as an ADJECTIVE.
  A good dictionary will tell you when this is true.
  For example, look up dedicated on this website:

  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dedicated

Actually, there are some -ed ADJECTIVES than are not related to verbs,
For example one-eyed, thick skinned, big headed ...

PS
@Simone has found a page which discusses another use of PAST PARTICIPLES.
For a learner it can be interesting and useful to understand them.
But you don't need to learn them or use them yourself.

Only a small number of verbs form a DIFFERENT PRESENT PERFECT with be + PAST PARTICIPLE.
The most common of these are the IRREGULAR VERBS sit and stand.

@mnahid89, you don't

know that this is an uncountable noun

You know that it is usually an uncountable noun.

The uncountable noun knowledge refers to an abstraction — not a specific thing enjoyed by an individual. That's why we don't usually speak about knowledges.

Knowledge of English is more specific, but still not enjoyed by an individual.

But when you talk about a specific area of knowledge enjoyed by a specific individual, then it becomes exactly like the first word you asked about:

She has an excellent memory.
She has an excellent knowledge of English.

Very many nouns that are usually uncountable can change into countable nouns in particular contexts. The best way to make progress in English is to notice these exceptions and learn to use them.

And remember that it is not English to say
I have good memory.
I have knowledge of English.

@Lars1998, I don't think you need to worry about whether the word since is used or not. It's a question of meaning.

You use the phrase 'a certain period'. In English we seldom use the PRESENT SIMPLE to refer to any certain period.
Rather, it's a an uncertain period which includes the time of speaking.
For a narrower, but still uncertain period, we use the PRESENT PROGRESSIVE. Thus:

I live in Edinburgh. — true for an indefinite period before and after the time of speaking
I'm living in Edinburgh. — temporarily true

For a definite period, we use different verb forms — depending on whether the period excludes or includes the time of speaking.

• excluding I lived in Germany for two years — true for a definite period of two years in the past, but I don't live there now.
• including I have lived in Edinburgh for two years — true for a definite period or two years up to the time of speaking

For indefinite periods before the time of speaking, we use that difficult feature of English grammar the PRESENT PERFECT
I have lived in Germany — true for one or more periods
We use this when the focus is on life experience

The result of this is that we interpret PRESENT PERFECT I have lived in two different ways

1. with a DURATION or TIME adverbial — always refers to a definite period up to the time of speaking
   I have lived in Edinburgh for two years.
   I have lived in Edinburgh since 2016.

2. without an adverbial — always refers to an indefinite period or periods excluding the time of speaking
   I have lived in Germany.

For the first meaning, do learn to use the PRESENT PERFECT.
If you use the PRESENT SIMPLE, English speakers will understand you, but it sounds foreign.

There's a fundamental problem for speakers of other languages that have a
COMPOSED PAST verb form — be/have + PAST PARTICIPLE.
In English, the choice between PRESENT PERFECT and PAST SIMPLE is never stylistic, always a different way of seeing the past.

• I lived — within a larger period which excludes the time of speaking
• I have lived — within a larger period which includes the time of speaking

I think of these larger periods as BEFORE NOW and UP TO NOW

Because of this distinction, we use different forms for happenings

• at definite and indefinite times.
  definite I lived in Germany in 2012.
  indefinite I have lived in Germany.

• in periods excluding now and including now
  excluding now I saw her yesterday
  including now I've seen her today

(Using PRESENT PERFECT with today, this week this year etc is normal, but not compulsory. )

@LuckyStar8, this a really difficult question. The sentence doesn't seem ungrammatical.
If we change it to obey the usual rules of sentence grammar, the result is
Finally, all that remains is smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses.
This isn't ungrammatical, but it sounds rather strange to me.

I think three sorts of process are involved.

1. ANALYSING or NOT ANALYSING
   All that remains is a SET PHRASE.
   Yes, it has a normal STRUCTURE — a NOUN followed by a RELATIVE CLAUSE.
   But when we hear it, we don't analyse it in our minds.
   We understand it as a simple unit which often introduces a topic .

2. TOPIC and COMMENT
   That word TOPIC is often used to mean 'what I want to talk about in this sentence'.
   Often the words showing the topic appear as the SUBJECT of the sentence or clause.

It's possible to write
TOPIC.........................................................................COMMENT
Smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses will be all that remains.

But it's also possible to write
COMMENT.........................TOPIC
All that remains will be smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses.

Why do we choose one rather than the other?

• Often we put the TOPIC expression at the end because it's heavy (long and with several stressed words). Perhaps Niall Ferguson felt that smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses was to heavy to sound right as the SUBJECT.

• Often we want to link the ideas in an expression to ideas in a precious sentence or in a sentence that will follow. Perhaps Ferguson wanted to link the idea of remaining with something in the previous sentence. Perhaps he wanted this sentence to introduce something in the next sentence.

3. THE MEANING OF all
   All is usually a positive word, but there is a use where it's negative — meaning 'nothing else'.

Still avoiding the PRESENT, we could write
Smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses will remain and nothing else

4. THE MEANING OF is/are
   Let's use the term COMPLEMENT to mean the expression following the verb be.
   The grammar is different for two sorts of sentences

A. NON-REVERSIBLE
The SUBJECT expresses a MEMBER and the COMPLEMENT expresses a CLASS. For example,

SUBJECT...BE....COMPLEMENT
MEMBER...BE....CLASS
_John.......is.....a man. _

We can't reverse the order of the expressions

SUBJECT...BE....COMPLEMENT
CLASS.......BE....MEMBER
_A man........is.....John. _

B. REVERSIBLE
Both the SUBJECT and the COMPLEMENT refer to the same thing, so the order of the expressions can be reversed.

• Two references. For example

SUBJECT.......BE.....COMPLEMENT
John..................is.....the leader.
The leader.........is.....John.

• One is a reference an the other is an EXPLANATION

SUBJECT....................................................BE...COMPLEMENT
REFERENCE....................................................BE...EXPLANATION
A leader.............................................................is.... someone that other people agree to follow.
EXPLANATION................................................BE....REFERENCE
Someone that other people agree to follow....is.... a leader

• One expresses the WHOLE and the other expresses COMPONENT PARTS. For example

SUBJECT.............................BE......COMPLEMENT
WHOLE..................................BE......COMPONENT PARTS
A three-piece suite ...............is ......a sofa and two armchairs.
COMPONENT PARTS.............BE......WHOLE
A sofa and two armchairs ......is ....a three-piece suite.

Let's try to put these four together:

The expression all that remains is
1. a SET PHRASE
2. a COMMENT
3. NEGATIVE in the sense that it EXCLUDES anything else
4. a REVERSIBLE expression of the WHOLE

The expression smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses is
1. not a SET PHRASE
2. a TOPIC
3. NEGATIVE in tone but NOT EXCLUDING anything
4. a REVERSIBLE expression of two COMPONENT PARTS

The usual way to put the two together is to start with the TOPIC as the SUBJECT:
Smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses are all that remains.

But Niall Ferguson decided to REVERSE the SUBJECT and COMPLEMENT expressions.
Usually, there is no problem with BE. The Beatles sang:
All you need is love.
Love is all you need.

But here one expression is SINGULAR and the other is PLURAL.
Why doesn't Ferguson change are to is when he REVERSES the order?
I suggest

1. Because the SUBJECT is a SET PHRASE, he doesn't pays as much attention as usual to the grammar of it.
2. BECAUSE the COMPLEMENT is the TOPIC, he feels that it's more important and should have more effect on the grammar.
3. Because the SUBJECT is a negative expression meaning 'and nothing else', it seems less important and should have less effect on the grammar.
4. The COMPLEMENT vividly describes the two COMPONENT PARTS. We're not very interested in the WHOLE.

Reasons 2-4 would not usually be strong enough to lead us to are rather than is. But reason 1 — the fact that it's a SET PHRASE — make those reasons stronger.

NOTE 1
There are other types of REVERSED sentences with are before a COMPLEMENT which is PLURAL

Tom, Dick and Harry are invited.
Invited are Tom, Dick and Harry.

Postage and packing charges are included.
Included are postage and packing charges.

A clock and a vase of flowers are on the shelf.
On the shelf are a clock and a vase of flowers.

NOTE 2
In the type of sentence where the SUBJECT is a RELATIVE CLAUSE alone, we sometimes write is if it was like a SINGULAR NOUN PHRASE, and so we choose is:
What we saw was three apples and four oranges.

But quite often we choose are when the COMPLEMENT is PLURAL:
What we saw was three apples and four oranges.