The first sentence is ungrammatical. The second sentence is fine but the sense of it seems wrong. This is because admin roles are generally sensitive and not usually assignable to just any user. I'd suggest:
You can invite a user to the workspace and you are allowed to assign her or him the admin role.
I'm up - I am awake (dressed, teeth brushed...)
I'm up for that - I like the idea of taking part in 'that'
I'm down - I am sad
I'm down for that - I have committed myself to doing 'that'
That said, both 'for that' senses can be understood without adding 'for that', context is important to be understood right.
The preposition ‘through’ is often used in sentences when something is
going in from one side /end and coming out of another end. Example.
The plane went through the clouds.
The preposition ‘via’ is used in sentences when we are talking about a
path that passes through. Example . to fly to America via India.
Some of the examples of ‘ through’ are:-
In "The advantages of whatever THAT happens always outweigh the costs" whatever is the subject of the noun clause "whatever happens", and "happens" is the verb.
Why would you separate the subject from its verb with "that"?
"Who saw the film "Slumdog Millionaire"?" Correct.
*"Who that saw the ...
When the word 'that' is used to pin-point a particular noun it is a demonstrative word but using the word 'whatever' has a connotation of a unspecified or unpredictable situation. Perhaps, 'that' and 'whatever' are two word of opposite connotation to it so they can't be used together in the sentence.
Whereas when you try to describe your feelings you would ...
No, your answer is plain wrong.
It would be correct to say “I don’t want anyone to intervene”.
But in your example the clause “anyone to intervene” is a predicate to “thing”, not a complement to “want”.
Try slightly changing the word order:
“For anyone to intervene is the last thing I want” is correct.
“Anyone to intervene is the last thing I want” is ...
The phrase is "within its vault". You might be getting confused because the textbooks usually show prepositional phrases after the verb. In this case, the verb is "to be" (conjugated as are). That verb is symmetric (like an equal sign), so its usually reasonable to swap the order of the two things before and after the verb.
In your ...
In your example “at a time” would refer to a particular moment or an instant in which we want the number of insects.
“In a time” would refer to a duration of time at the end of which we are calculating the number of insects.
I think you mean to use the former version, therefore “at a time” is what is correct according to me.
You can say that without a ‘for’, but it would presuppose the listener knew what the subject was. In other words, you would have stated the subject and the verb in an earlier sentence, and they were now understood by the listener
Neither seems natural English to me. If one wishes to write elegant scientific English (and “conjecture” suggests the poster might) I suggest:
“A conjecture regarding…”
A matter of taste, but I think my answer tastes better than the accepted one.
Your proposed edit:
The steps in this procedure must be performed chronologically until the card has been found or all steps have been exhausted and an adjustment to the system must be made.
My suggested edit of your edit:
The steps in this procedure must be performed chronologically until the card has been found, or all steps have been exhausted and an ...
I'd use (1) on (2) on/about (3) on (4) Conjectures on the deduction of the molecular structure of DNA (5) on.
If you look at Merriam-Webster's example sentences, you'll see they mainly use the noun 'conjecture' without a prepositional phrase. The exceptions are
The biography includes conjectures about the writer's earliest ambitions.
a conjecture about the ...
Many phrasal verbs have this great change in meaning based on the preposition. For example, the verb 'put':
to put on - to wear
to put off - to delay
to put up - to house
to put down - to insult
to put out - to disadvantage, to offer sex
to put upon - to impose
Here's a list of many such phrasal verbs showing how just changing the preposition doesn't just ...
One example is hit.
The man hit me.
The man hit on me.
These have different meanings. The first is obvious, but the second means that he wanted something, such as a favour, money or sex.
The references are from Lexico.
The word "for" in this example is acting a phrasal verb.
A phrasal verb is a combination of words (usually a verb and a particle, such as a verb + an adverb or a verb + a preposition).
Ashley is applying for university this summer.
More on the subject and detailed examples:
In ichthyology, the head length of a fish is defined, for example:
Rather than using lengths measured in mm or cm, the sizes of anatomical fish features may be expressed in terms of the head length, making it a unit of measurement against which other size features of a fish may be conveniently measured or compared, regardless of the absolute size ...
Here's my take:The expression "go home" being elliptical, "home" takes on the meaning of the missing preposition (hence its name). Pseudogapping begets semantic void.
I think 'father of' means biologically, but 'father to' figuratively, e.g. Joseph was the father of Jesus. Our elders should be respected; they are our parents. The males will always be fathers to us. Hence the phrase: our forefathers.
Both of your examples are correct, but they do indeed have different meanings.
In your first example, to is a preposition followed by the object of the preposition—the gerund learning:
I devoted so much time to what?
I devoted so much time to learning this skill.
In your second example, to is an infinitive marker. Combined with the base verb, it’s called ...
This is almost without doubt the phrasal verb "to crash out (of something)"; as it is specialized to sport, it makes sense.
crash out (of something) (British English, sport) to lose a game with the result that you have to stop playing in a competition
♦ They crashed out of the World Cup after a 2–1 defeat to Brazil.
♦ Ireland crashed out ...
The "to" is necessary, because this is a construction that takes the infinitive form of a verb ("to evaluate", "to present", etc.). So this is correct:
The aims of the study were: (1) to evaluate, (2) to present ...
But this is not:
The aims of the study were: (1) evaluate, (2) present ...
However, it's not necessary to ...
Preposition at is often used in the following context:
to show the activity in which someone's ability is being judged:
I was never very good at sports.
He's very good at getting on with people.
She's hopeless at organizing things.
to show the cause of something, especially a feeling:
We were surprised at the news.
I was quite excited at the ...
"We have come to an understanding of all the questions discussed" implies that we collectively came to understand the questions themselves.
"We have come to an understanding about all the questions discussed" means that there was some debate among us about the intent (not the meaning) of the questions that were discussed, and we came to ...