This a reduced relative clause for sure, but your interpretation is incorrect, the reduced relative clause for This my last night __ working here is not:
This is my last night that I work here
This is my last night (that I am) working here
Why? Because the verb "be" can be omitted in reduced relative clauses, I will cite this rule (look at d. ...
The "I wish" structure usually demands that the following verb be/is put in the conditional mode in many languages, including in English. In English a past tense modal verb like "could" is used. Here is the explanation.
Past tense modals would and could are used about wishes for the future:
I don't like my work. I wish I could get a better job.
That's a ...
To me, "could own" means something different from "owned": (a) means that I don't own a motorbike, and I wish things were otherwise. (b), on the other hand, implies not just (a), but also that there's something blocking me from owning a motorbike, such as a law or city ordinance.
(a) I wish I owned a motorbike.
(c) I wish I could have a motorbike.
If 'neither' is followed by a verb 'nor' should also be followed by a verb. E.g. Audience should neither stand up nor make a noise. Here, if one writes "Neither audience should stand up, or make a noise" is incorrect.
Yes, 'neither' can be used at the start.
Neither be an emperor, nor be a beggar. (It is like "be neither an emperor nor a beggar.")
I didn't quite understand the original sentence: the word "only" suggests that the speaker's saying there's a limit to how often they are prepared to re-ask, but "again" does not suggest such a limit (to me).
If we take it that the speaker is saying such a limit, then I'd go with Dan's suggestion.
You could alternatively say "I’m going to ask you once ...
You can view it as a complex sentence. When (he is) slapped by his friend, he cries. "When (he is) slapped by his friend" is an adverbial dependent clause and modifies the independent clause "He cries." That the dependent clause is a passive construction is revealing. The sentence could be "When he slaps his friend, he cries." However, then you couldn't ...
I was taught a "rule" in school to avoid the word "nice" entirely. What you need to be aware of is that that "rule" is appropriate for school children who are still learning creative writing. The overuse of "nice" is not creative or imaginative which is why many teachers prohibited its use.
However, it has always been grammatically correct where any other ...
The publishers would only be worried about the prices of publications if the market was weak, if the market was robust they would be able to sell almost anything at a profit. The problem the publishers faced was finding enough material to satisfy the demand. The situation was something like the market in internet businesses in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ...
disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker of English.
"My every" seems to be followed by limited experssions. I searched COCA Corpus.
Among the total 255 hits of "my every", there are:
my every move(ment): 65
my every word: 20
Other examples include: my every nerve/breath/bone/muscle/vein/heartbeat; sense/intention/desire/expectation/thought... Seemingly "...
This is a productive set of morphological constructions, so you can use it for new verbs and most English speakers will be able to understand it. However, it is very often the case that the pattern is not used for existing words. For example we say student not teachee. If you do use -ee it is likely to be interpreted as a humorous use of language, which may ...
In short, no, you cannot use this for all verbs.
The addition of -er/-or to indicate the person or item which performs the verb can be applied to most verbs. As @EdwinAshworth points out in the comments, there are some for which it sounds - at best - questionable ("rainer", "snower", for example), but it's generally a productive suffix which can be widely ...
You can use, 'Vested', as you cite in your example.
held completely, permanently, and inalienably:
Your example therefore could equally be worded, "Gain complete, permanent insight from..."
"Welcome home" is a complete sentence. Welcome serves as an imperative in much the same way as "Stand up" is considered a complete sentence. This is NOT an utterance or an exception to any rule
In the book, "Commands: A Cross-linguistic Typology" found on Google books, page 179, the example of "Welcome home" is given as a non-command form of the ...
The Cambridge English Dictionary, under the headword choose, includes:
choose to do something: B1 to decide to do something:
Katie chose (= decided) to stay away from work that day.
There is no corresponding construction ('select to do something' under the headword select, and I'd be surprised if there were. I think the construction is ...
Grammarians consider split infinitive "bad style". However there was Raymond Chandler, American writer, who got very angry when his British publisher 'corrected' his split infinitives. He said (from here)
"When I split an infinitive, god damn it, I
split it so it stays split."
There is a history to parallelisms like this, in which the verb to be or some other verb is omitted. The omission itself was almost an announcement like a roll of drums: "this is a universal truth". This style of expression was called in ancient Greece αποφθεγμα (apophthegm - pronounced apofthem). The pre-socratic proponent of an early version of atomic ...
Far from the poorly structured and carelessly uttered double negatives, double negative adjectives or adverbs like the one you have mentioned are perfectly fine and often used by eloquent speakers and writers of refined taste.
Consider the following:
She was not unattractive.
Would you say the meaning is the same as below?
She was attractive.
The verb “raise” can have a different meaning or sense, in that which means “communicate” to someone by phone or radio as outlined in the Cambridge Dictionary
(B2 level) raise verb [T] (COMMUNICATE)
to communicate with someone, especially by phone or radio:
’I've been trying to raise Jack/Tokyo all day.’ *
This sentence does not mean the ...
Both are grammatical, but the latter is more common and accepted as the standard phrase. But again, MW defines off of, so it's really a question of using it on audience that you think can assimilate the usage.
Question tags consist of an auxiliary or modal verb or lexical verb be + subject pronoun. (Cambridge Grammar of English, section 300)
So we cannot use possessive. The subject of the sentence 'Your name is Ben' is 'your name' of which pronoun is 'it'. So the taq question might be 'isn't it'
The given sentence quite liberally teeters between tenses, and is erroneous. The first sentence seems like the narrator is limning in the past, and then fast-forwards to the present. I'd first rephrase the sentence as:
Graduated, I started attending the degree course in Computer Science and Engineering in 2017, after whose completion, I will graduate in ...
The conjunction can be omitted if the series is perfectly clear without it. Words Into Type (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974) gives an example: “We noticed the misery, the suffering, the hardships, that lay hidden in the neighborhood.” Words Into Type says that when using that construction, you should have a comma after the final item in the series ...
Outside of math and primary classes, I have never seen anyone not used those with these words, unless you were to use "etc" or "...".
I say math because if one needs to describe a set of data, one would omit the use of these words. Here is an example.
Ignore Jim101. Its not what i would go for, but all that matters is you and your fiancé/wife understand it. No one else reading that will get it off the bat. The reason being toasts are not proper sentences and make sense in context of a raised glass. Not on a ring. But who will see it and why do you care what anyone other than your intended thinks?
There are virtually no situations in the UK where you should address anyone as "Master" or "Lord". As has been said, to do so would cause confusion or offence (to the extent that, if you were in a bar, you might well get punched). Even as the address for a young boy Master is very old fashioned (think of an elderly relative sending a birthday card).
The English equivalent of the T–V distinction is when you refer to someone as Mr Smith or Mrs Jones because you are not on a first-name basis with them. You would also use sir or ma’am respectively for those two individuals.
Mr Smith, your car is ready for you now, sir.
Mrs Jones, your car is ready for you now, ma’am.
Those are two separate markers, but ...
I suspect most people would be confused. Others might even be offended, associating the address Master with slavery.
In English, the honorific "Master" has an archaic (out-of-use but still familiar) use for addressing young boys, who are not yet in such state as they can properly be called "Mister". I am not aware of any other still-familiar, general-...