There are 12 percents possibility or there is 12 percent possibility?
"There is a 12 percent chance" works best.
Ask @The_YUNiversity
Previous
Wich is thw difference between will and going to
When we want to talk about future facts or things we believe to be true about the future, we use "will":
I will help you write an excellent essay.
The mayor will be giving a speech in two hours.
Will the decorations be ready in time for the party?
"Going to" expresses the idea that a person intends to do something in the future. It does not matter whether the plan is realistic or not. It is also used to express a future prediction based on evidence in the present situation.
It's going to be windy today.
The line is so long; we are going to miss the first few minutes of the movie!
Jo is going to meet GD one day.
Having said that, most people use them interchangeably, and very few people actually care about the differences in meaning.
I will help you write an excellent essay.
The mayor will be giving a speech in two hours.
Will the decorations be ready in time for the party?
"Going to" expresses the idea that a person intends to do something in the future. It does not matter whether the plan is realistic or not. It is also used to express a future prediction based on evidence in the present situation.
It's going to be windy today.
The line is so long; we are going to miss the first few minutes of the movie!
Jo is going to meet GD one day.
Having said that, most people use them interchangeably, and very few people actually care about the differences in meaning.
i found this word in a dictionary. 'Auld lang syne' . how should i use this?
The only time that phrase is ever used is on New Year's Eve. It has become a song that we sing as December 31 turns into January 1. (The Scottish song was written by Robert Burns in 1788.)
Here are some phrases that contain "auld lang syne":
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
According to the dictionary, "auld lang syne" means "times long past," and "for auld lang syne" means "for old times' sake."
Here are some phrases that contain "auld lang syne":
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
According to the dictionary, "auld lang syne" means "times long past," and "for auld lang syne" means "for old times' sake."
Liked by:
thaya ardelia
People you may like
she doesn't expecting you to come to the party or she isnt expect you ?
"She DOESN'T EXPECT you to come to the party."
"She ISN'T EXPECTING you to come to the party."
Both are right.
"She ISN'T EXPECTING you to come to the party."
Both are right.
" i will stop kicking him " is correct right because if verb+verb-ing right? but what about this one? "i wanna go see her" or " i wanna go seeing her" "i came looking for him" or "i came look for him"
"I will stop kicking him."
"I wanna keep seeing her."
"I came looking for him."
This article explains this very well: http://bit.ly/1zfSHFY
"I wanna keep seeing her."
"I came looking for him."
This article explains this very well: http://bit.ly/1zfSHFY
Liked by:
cerap
"The sight of Bella makes him feel sick" or "The sight of Bellas makes him feels sick" , I just want to kmow is it true if the structure of the sentence is verb+noun+ verb the second verb is root word?
"The sight of Bella makes him feel sick" is correct.
It's because with "make," we always use the base form:
Don't MAKE me CLEAN the room.
She will MAKE Jo WRITE her essay.
Will Mom MAKE my brother EAT his vegetables?
It's because with "make," we always use the base form:
Don't MAKE me CLEAN the room.
She will MAKE Jo WRITE her essay.
Will Mom MAKE my brother EAT his vegetables?
What makes report text different with recount text?
Although they are synonyms, "recount" = "tell the story of" or "narrate." It works well with stories, tales, and talking.
"Report" is more factual and objective. It works well with facts, evidence, and news.
But there are times when the two words overlap and can be used interchangeably.
"Report" is more factual and objective. It works well with facts, evidence, and news.
But there are times when the two words overlap and can be used interchangeably.
"this is nowhere near good enough." what part of speech is "nowhere", "near", and "enough"? (is that an adjective, or adverb qualifying an adjective phrase, or adverb qualifying an adverb?)
"Nowhere near" is being used as an idiom to mean "not nearly," an adverb (phrase).
"Good" is an adjective.
"Enough" is used there as an adverb.
"Good" is an adjective.
"Enough" is used there as an adverb.
"do you see who I see" or "do you see whom I see"?
"Do you see WHOM I see?" is technically correct, but NO ONE would ever say that or write that. NO ONE.
Therefore, use "Do you see WHO I see?" instead. Sometimes, being "right" is not worth the trouble. This is one of those times.
Therefore, use "Do you see WHO I see?" instead. Sometimes, being "right" is not worth the trouble. This is one of those times.
hung or hanged?
Clothing and artwork are HUNG.
Criminals are HANGED.
Criminals are HANGED.
TGIF stands for thank god it's friday, right? so thanks god is wrong?
"Thank God It's Friday" is right.
Why do we need grammar?
It's part of being an educated human being who likes to communicate with other educated human beings.
Liked by:
Викторий Водород
i've seen people using "real fast" in a sentence. which one is right? real fast or really fast? kinda confused with it. :/
REALLY fast.
"Really" is an adverb that modifies "fast." It works in the same way as "very." If you can use "very," you should use "really," not "real." ("Real" is an adjective that describes objects, not other adjectives: REAL gun, REAL sugar, REAL diamond, etc.)
"Really" is an adverb that modifies "fast." It works in the same way as "very." If you can use "very," you should use "really," not "real." ("Real" is an adjective that describes objects, not other adjectives: REAL gun, REAL sugar, REAL diamond, etc.)
why do most novels use past tense? (or maybe, all novels?)
For stories that span months, years, decades, and even centuries, using the present tense is both impractical and impossible. Also, if the story has multiple characters who lived and did things at different times, using the present tense would also be impractical.
just how many way to use word "regard" ? I've seen in regards to, regarding to, regardless of.. (are these right?)
Here's a great article about this: http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/with-regard-to-regarding/
if "I'm married to him" is right, then why is "We've been marrying for a year" wrong?
"We've BEEN MARRIED for a year."
"We've been marrying for a year" means that we have gotten married to each other every day for a year, i.e., you've had 365 wedding ceremonies.
"We've been marrying for a year" means that we have gotten married to each other every day for a year, i.e., you've had 365 wedding ceremonies.
Liked by:
nblh
1) why left instead of gone? 2) why not had? the moment he went to the office is in the past, right?
We use the PAST PERFECT TENSE (had + past participle) to indicate a past tense action that happened before another past tense action. If you change your sentence to this, "had" would be right:
BY THE TIME we got to Jim's house, his mother told us that he HAD GONE to the store without us.
For more on this topic, read this: http://bit.ly/1jTxpnI
BY THE TIME we got to Jim's house, his mother told us that he HAD GONE to the store without us.
For more on this topic, read this: http://bit.ly/1jTxpnI
I've checked the link you gave, and it said that if the "not only" is followed by the main clause, you need to switch the subject and the verb.. why is that so? because of the main clause thing?
It's all about parallel structure. The kind of word or phrase that comes after NOT ONLY also has to come after BUT ALSO: NOT ONLY a noun BUT ALSO a noun; NOT ONLY a verb phrase BUT ALSO a verb phrase; NOT ONLY an adjective BUT ALSO an adjective.
he had gone or he has gone? *if we wanna meet someone and his mother says he already went to office
She would say neither. She would say, "He has already left."
is it "how does that suppose to work" or "how is that supposed to work"
"How is that SUPPOSED TO work?" is OK.
"How does it work?" is better.
"Suppose to" is generally wrong.
"How does it work?" is better.
"Suppose to" is generally wrong.
To use was/were?
WAS = past tense, singular: He WAS here five minutes ago.
WERE = past tense, plural: They WERE here five minutes ago.
For the subjunctive mood ("I wish I WERE ..."; "If I WERE you ..."), read this: http://bit.ly/1pWL29H
WERE = past tense, plural: They WERE here five minutes ago.
For the subjunctive mood ("I wish I WERE ..."; "If I WERE you ..."), read this: http://bit.ly/1pWL29H
is it "in the moment" or "at the moment"
"At the moment" means now, at the present time: I'm busy AT THE MOMENT.
"In the moment" is almost always used in the idiom "Live in the moment" (to enjoy the now, without worrying about the future): Jo envied her brother, who always seemed to live IN THE MOMENT, while she was always stressed about life.
"In the moment" is almost always used in the idiom "Live in the moment" (to enjoy the now, without worrying about the future): Jo envied her brother, who always seemed to live IN THE MOMENT, while she was always stressed about life.
is "you'll make it through" right?
Yes.
But whatt if we put the "not only" in the beginning of the sentence? I saw a sentence like this before : "not only did he go to paris but also rome." Why does "did" come first, not the subject?
In that sentence, it should be "He went NOT ONLY to Paris BUT ALSO Rome."
Here are some more examples and an explanation: http://bit.ly/1olNnK0
Here are some more examples and an explanation: http://bit.ly/1olNnK0
I'm confused with die, died, and dead. Could you give an explanation ?
DIE = present tense, singular: He will DIE if he doesn't get home by midnight.
DIED = past tense: The brave soldier DIED in battle.
DEAD = adjective: The criminals threw the DEAD body into their car and drove off.
DIED = past tense: The brave soldier DIED in battle.
DEAD = adjective: The criminals threw the DEAD body into their car and drove off.
Next
