Tag Info

New answers tagged


I think it's a close call. If you leave it out, there can be no ambiguity because 'drawn' is the past participle and therefore can only belong with the previous 'have'. On the other hand the gap is just long enough to give pause when reading. It is grammatically correct with a single 'have' but, on balance I suggest repeating it.


Answering from Ireland. I would say "They got the answers yesterday, didn't they?", 'did' referring to 'got', meaning 'they did get'.


You can not go to school. It's perfectly possible to use the sentence above to mean that not going to school is a possible option. Notice that usually the word cannot is written as one word. This anomaly is probably not an accident. Usually if we have an auxiliary that is not contracted with the negative word not, the auxiliary is not stressed, ...


With suitable prosody, "You can not go to school" could mean "You are able not to go to school". But it is ambiguous, and without special stress it would probably be interpreted as "You cannot go to school".


To contract "I am not" to 2 syllables, there are two alternatives: either combine "am" with "I", or "am" with "not". If the latter were adopted, "I amn't" would indeed be a reasonable choice. For whatever reason, though, the former has become the norm, producing "I'm not" as the standard contraction (and definitely not "I are not". "Are" is used with second ...


As you've correctly stated, the phrase "I are not" is incorrect. The reason for this is because the pronoun, "I" is in first person whereas the word, "are" is supposed to be used with pronouns that are third-person plural, such as "they" (they are). So what you're supposed to say is "I am not," instead of "I are not." And, there's no conjunction for "am ...


My opinion in this regard is that, will is used in the case of surety and would is used in the case in which we are not sure, but future always not sure. But take it sure when we will 100% agree and when there is a chance of 50-50.

Top 50 recent answers are included