Best Of
Best Of
Re: How clause
You could start by substituting how extensive.
Yes, full and true will need to become fully and truly — but not in the MAIN CLAUSE.
- It is difficult to assess how fully extensive the damage is. (or was)
- She was exaggerating how extensive the problem truly is. or She was exaggerating how truly extensive the problem is. (or was)
- I was amazed at the how extensive his knowledge is. (or was)
Then if you wish, you can choose synonyms to substitute for extensive.
Getting the most out of this community
Here are some tips and tricks for using this forum:
- Use the reactions. These let you share how you feel about other’s comments. The most liked content shows up on the Best Of page.
- Mention others. Put an @ symbol before the username to mention someone. They’ll get notified when you do.
- Update your notification preferences. You’ll receive a notification if someone mentions you or posts to a discussion that you’ve bookmarked. You can set notifications from the Edit Profile page.
- Send messages. You can private message members by going to your inbox, or visiting their profile page (click their username anywhere).
- Don’t want to see everyone’s signature? You can hide signatures by going to Edit Profile > Signature Settings.
- Check out the forum from your mobile phone. Just go to the forum URL in your browser - no need to download an app.
- Want to embed a YouTube video, a Pinterest Pin or a Tweet? Just paste in the link. Vanilla will handle the embedding for you!
- Check out what’s going on with other community members on the Activity page.
Have fun!
Re: Especially
You can find a less confusing definition, @lb_c119, if you click on DICTIONARY in the top left-hand corner of this page.
especially
ADVERB
1 Used to single out one person or thing over all others.
‘he despised them all, especially Sylvester’
‘a new song, written especially for Jonathan’2 To a great extent; very much.
‘he didn't especially like dancing’
[as submodifier] ‘sleep is especially important in growing children’
From that page you can click to see more example sentences and also synonyms.
But that rather awkward definition that you've found does apply to your sentences.
The car is quite small — more in the particular circumstance that you have children.
(This is using small in a relative sense 'small in relation to your needs'.)Teenagers are very fashion conscious — true more with girls than with boys.
- I love Rome — more in the particular circumstance when I'm there in the spring.
Re: Past tenses
1-Now does asking with "When" make sense? And in what case could it make sense?
Yes, it does makes sense — because we understand when to mean 'before' when there's a PAST PERFCT form in the MAIN CLAUSE. It's clearer and sound better to use the word Before, but it's not ungrammatical to use When.
2-Also someone (Probably American) would say "Before you worked in your last job, did you have your own office" is this grammatically correct?
I think speakers of other dialects — including British English — would find it perfectly acceptable.
There's a slight difference in how a hearer/reader might understand the two sentences
Before you worked in your last job, did you have your own office?
This might be understood to refer one job before the last one.Before you worked in your last job, had you had your own office?
This might be understood to refer all the jobs before the last one.
(This meaning can be made explicit by using the word ever.)
Re: Past tenses
1-Now does asking with "When" make sense? And in what case could it make sense?
It makes sense. But it means 'before' so it's better to just write Before.
2-Also someone (Probably American) would say "Before you worked in your last job, did you have your own office" is this grammatically correct?
I think it's acceptable in any dialect of English. For me, it suggests
'Did you have your own office when you worked in the job previous to your last job.'
With the PAST PERFECT you could be asking
'Did you have your own office when you worked in any of your jobs previous to your last job.'
Re: Located
Most English verbs produce forms called PARTICIPLES. Generally they are formed with a suffix.
-ING
Almost all English verbs have a form with this suffix.
-ED
The majority of English verbs have a form with this suffix.
An important minority have forms similar in use and meaning but not created with a suffix. For example:
known, gone, taken, written, read
PARTICIPLES may be used like ADJECTIVES in three ways
1. before a noun — a screaming child, a watched pot cf a happy child, a black pot
2. after BE — the child is screaming, the pot is watched cf the child is happy, the pot is black
3.in a phrase after a noun — a child screaming for its mother, a pot watched by the cooks cf a child happy in life, a pot black from long use
In these uses, the -ing forms are ACTIVE and the -ed forms are PASSIVE.
(This important distinction is not reflected in the traditional terms present participle and past participle.)
OK, there are some exceptions, but very few:
- Before a noun, as in an escaped prisoner, a grown boy, the retired manager and the departed guests, the -ed forms are not passive but related to PRESENT PERFECT a prisoner has escaped etc
- After BE some (not all) of these may be used — e.g. the manager is retired
Note that
- before a noun. a participle must generally stand alone as one word
- -ing forms may be used in different ways — as NOUNS or noun-like words
- some -ed forms are not participles but are created from NOUN PHRASES — eg three-legged
For these reasons we have some strange pairs
- a smoking gun (smoking= participle) vs a smoking jacket (smoking = verbal noun)
- a skinned rabbit (skinned = participle) vs a dark-skinned man (from dark skin)
Now many participles have changes to become more like adjectives.
- Some have combined with prefixes — e.g. unsurprising, disinterested although there are no verbs unsurprise, disinterest
Some have gained additional meanings. One grammar gives the examples
— She is calculating (but her husband is frank) vs She is calculating our salaries (so don't disturb her while she is doing the arithmetic)
— They were relieved (to find her at home) vs They were relieved (by the next group of sentries)
In the first sentence of each pair, the -ed/-ing word can combine with very
— very calculating (but NOT very calculating our salaries), very relieved (but NOT very relieved by the next sentries)Some other -ed/-ing words can be used with very —very very interesting, very willing, very excited, very interested
- Compounds made up another word and an -ing/-ed word can also be used with very — The story is ver heart-breaking, The egg is very hard-boiled .
- Some -ing/-ed words can combine with the suffix -ly to form ADVERBS —willingly, excitedly
I think it's safe to classify any -ing/-ed word that combines with very or -ly as an ADJECTIVE
Now located has not become completely like an an adjective. We can't say very located or locatedly
But there's some difference between The lost city has been located and a small town located 30 miles south of Chicago.
In the first, somebody has searched for and found the city. In the second the small town didn't need to be found; it's where it always was. That difference in meaning must be why the Advanced Learner's Dictionary classifies located as an adjective.
The meaning of be located is 'be (geographically speaking)'.
Both located and the near-synonym situated must be followed by a phrase which is an expression of place. So
- The adjective south may be followed by by a phrase — south of Chicago
- This phrase may be preceded by a phrase expressing distance — 30 miles south of Chicago
- This phrase in turn may follow the word located — located 30 miles south of Chicago
- And finally this phrase can follow a NOUN within a NOUN PHRASE — a small town located 30 miles south of Chicago
Re: Is this grammar correct?
@boi_345, It's just not English to say
The duration will last
for much the dame reason as it's not English to say
The duration will enjoy a cup of tea
I wouldn't describe this as a grammar problem. It's just that the words don't go together.
We don't say
The length measures one metre.
The circumference circles the pond.
The weight of it weighs half a kilo.
Length, circumference, weight and duration are properties.
Duration is the property of lasting. So we don't say
The extent of lasting will last
Re: How do the native people understand the words such as way (method (the particular way ...) ...)?
@lb_c119, the key word is particular.
Look at the definitions in the online dictionary on this website.
Click on the word DICTIONARY in white letters on blue in the top left of the page.
For each word, click on —More example sentences.
You'll see that way and method are used quite differently.
Re: Beginner question
@ShowMoiDwae, I don't think they always argue is incorrect.
But I do think sounds more natural as the second sentence in
They don't get on well. They're always arguing.
The problem is the word always.
In They always argue the word is used literally meaning 'every time'.
But then what does every mean?
It would be OK if you specified some relevant times:
They always argue when they meet.
They go to the club on Wednesdays and they always argue.In They're always arguing the word is an exaggeration meaning 'very very often'.
Re: Using tenses
Can the second sentence in it's tense form be used when complaining about something? in this case going to work by car.
Well, yes but it would mean complaining about the fact, not the conditions. And it's not an obvious sort fact to complain about.
The PRESENT PROGRESSIVE would be more natural in, for example
I always go to work by car, and I'm always arriving late.
I always go to work by car, and I'm always having to wait in traffic jams.
I always go to work by car, and I'm always stopping at level crossings.