This is a forum to discuss the gray areas of the English language for which you would not find answers easily in dictionaries or other reference books.
Do You Have a Question?
Latest Posts : Grammar
Hi everybody! Few days ago my mate attended to a job competition for a job in the technical office of Rome. Among the many legal questions there were also some English questions. The one I am asking your help for is:
“Let ……. come in.”
the possible answers proposed are:
I am sure that all of you are thinking that the only right option to chose is “him”, that’s it.
Initially it was confirmed “his” with correct answer and after few days was corrected with “him”.
The english questions/phrases put in these competitions are generally extracted form bigger pieces, books.. and my partner didn’t answer because he says that in a certain contests it can be also right “Let his come in”, for example:
Michele is waiting for the vet to visit his cat. When the vet wants to visit Michele’s cat can say to his secretary:
<< Let his come in >> instead of << Let his cat come in>>.
What do you think? Is it possible consider both the options “his” and “him” correct?
Have you read some examples in books or articles in which you have found the phrase “Let his come in” ?
It can help my partner to obtain the job because he got a score of 20.8 and he had to get 21 to obtain the job! So it is very important the help of all of you.
so - Wiktionary gives these quotations:
‘There’re another two.’ ‘So there are.’
Why is the first one inverted and the second one not? I read it somewhere that it is because the answer of the second quotation confirms the first sentence (aforementioned stuff), so it is not allowed to invert. First, I can’t find another source that corraborates this reasoning. Second, why is it not allowed to invert? There must be a specific reason for this subject–auxiliary inversion.
A Facebook reader complained that another commenter was incorrect to use the term “My Walmart” while speaking about the Walmart in closest proximity to her home. I use “my” like this all the time. Are we both incorrect to use the word “my” in this way, because we do not own the walmart as he points out, or is he just being a grammar prude?
I know “I’m having trouble logging in to my account.” is correct. But is “I’m having trouble to log in” correct?
Are there some rules in using "trouble to"? I could not find sentences using “I’m having trouble to...” but I have found “not trouble to do something” like:
Nina need not trouble to come down, everything had been arranged.
Do not trouble to don your hat and gloves, Nina.
My friends never troubled to ask me what I would like.
Nina didn’t trouble to hide his disgust.
Please help me.
1. You don’t know how I am delighted to have you as a friend
2. You don’t know how delighted I am to have you as a friend.
3. I hope one day I can do something for you to show you how you are lovable in my heart and mind.
4. I hope one day I can do something for you to show you how loved you are in my heart and mind.
Sentences 2 and 4 are correct; sentences 1 and 3 are not. Please could you explain why? Thank you.
Is it possible to say “by the time we arrived at the cinema, the film was starting”? Or do I have to say “the film had started”?
Both structures sound ok to me if I use another verb (sleep) instead of “start” (“by the time I got there, he was already sleeping”) so I do not know if I am using the structure right (perhaps I should use “when” and not “by the time”) or if it is the verb “start” (due to its meaning) what makes “by the time we arrived, the film was starting” sound strange.
I’ve read a sentence like this:
Not only did George buy the house, but he also remodeled it.
I think this counts as a complex sentence, but I want to get some extra opinions. Doesn’t “Not only did George buy the house” modify “remodeled,” thus making the first clause dependent? In common English usage, the position of the subject “George” after “did” is fine in an interrogative sentence, but it’s not in a declarative sentence. Does the departure from standard declarative syntax suggest that the first clause is not independent (and therefore dependent)?