From the question:
I know we often say "interest in something" or "support for something."
To combine the two, you don't drop either from the construction:
✔ We thank all of you for your continued interest in and support for our Facebook page.
Stylistically, it could also be punctuated differently:
We thank all of you for your continued interest ...
Both "in" and "at" are acceptable grammatically in the first gap.
While most people would use "in" for a town where they live, "at" is acceptable. Stylistically "at" breaks up the repetition and makes the sentence clearer.
To live at somewhere is usually only used when giving a precise location. I live at 4 Privet Drive, but in the village of Little ...
Firstly, "as if" is a conjunction not a preposition.
Secondly, we mostly use as if with another independent clause
He felt as if I had a crush on the handsome man in the class.
But sometimes we use other structures such as non-finite clause and prepositional phrase after that, which is the case that you've mentioned. So I suggest you that ...
The object of path to is the destination. The object of path of is the thing taking or defining the path.
For example in the “the path to the store” store is the destination. In “the path of the plane”, plane is what’s following the path. “path (or way) of” can also be used to name a path because it names a defining characteristic of the path.
In “path ...
'Path to' indicates the way to get to something, the direction you would take to get to it. (eg the route you take to get to the top of a mountain)
Path to the iceberg
This would explain the route (or the steps) you take to get to the iceberg
This is sometimes also metaphorical (path to enlightenment/salvation)
The path to salvation requires you to ...
"Path to" refers to someone or something on a journey. for example, The militant crew will follow the path to the riverside road. However, Path of refers to the path someone has already made. like the dull student is following the path of bright student to get success in the examinations.
In this case you can only use "trust to do". There should be an infinitive, not a gerund after "trust".
"to doing" is only possible if "to" is a preposition, but here it is a particle.
And "trust of doing" is only possible if "trust" is a noun, but here it is a verb.
Edit. Usually, when we have two consecutive non-auxiliary verbs, while the first verb ...
The word "per" has its roots on Latin language, while "by" has roots on Germanic Languages.
Meaning is also a bit different: "by" usually refers to a person or object. "Per" refers to a category.
You don't say "This work was done per me". You say "This work was done by me".
"Whose" works ("whom" doesn't):
The chairman in whose private life the newspapers are so interested has nothing to hide.
The rules go something like this:
A relative expression is brought to the beginning of a relative clause.
A relative pronoun (e.g., "whose") is a relative expression.
A NP whose determiner is a relative expression is a ...
The OP's both sentences (1 and 2) are correct and they have the verb will leave in the simple future tense form in the main clause.
Even when they are rewritten with the verb will have left in the future perfect form, they are correct, but with a difference in meaning.
By the time we get there, he will leave.
(At the time of speaking, we ...
I know it's considered debatable whether or not it's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition, but in this case I would suggest "...in which big businesses have more control."
Is your meaning that big businesses have more power than small ones in the conditions of the market, or that they have control of it?
Firstly, note the definite article in "the small town of Louisville." While "XXX is a small town of …" has the indefinite article.
Both are valid, each with its distinctive meaning.
In the context, it means "the small town called Louisville".
with and to are correct; as is not.
Both permutations of the sentence
Can I do the same with/to the one in my room?
indicate you would like to know if the method you used to turn off the fire alarm in the kitchen can be used to turn off the fire alarm in your room.
Can I do the same as the one in my room?
would be nonsensical, because ...
Here for means:
because of or as a result of something:
I'm feeling all the better for my holiday.
"How are you?" "Fine, and all the better for seeing you!"
For alone as a conjunction, "because, since, for the reason that; in order that" is from late Old English, probably a shortening of ...
As there are practically no rules for that, you may always test some prepositions in a phrase e.g. on Ngram. This is on your first example disqualified for signing. As you can see there are no results for disqualified by signing, disqualified to signing, disqualified at signing. Disqualified for signing is clearly the only combination in use.
from is a funny little word undervalued in English in favor of of.
By my estimate the -m marks the case, which had come to supplement the ablativ and vocative in Germanic tongues. Compare whom, him; German dative von wem instead of genitive wessen, ca. "of whom" and "whose"; Latin accusative quam, "in what way".
This is notable because pro or fro (as in "...
I don't think from should be used here, rather out of.
Here is an example in an article heading:
Objective knowledge out of ignorance: Popper on body, mind, and the third world
Probability magic or knowledge out of ignorance
It means "...to be brave because you are ignorant and foolish".
A person who goes into a dangerous situation even though they are fully aware of the risks is more truly brave than one who rushes in without stopping to think.
Generally speaking, "at" is used to refer to a point in time, while "in" refers to the time period after the present moment.
I'll call you back at 5.30.
I'll call you back in 10
If we apply the same logic to "that time", the following sentence seems coherent:
I'll be cooking pasta for the next twenty minutes; could you please lay the table in ...
I like with, and would also break this into two sentences, like so:
On the go? Stay connected with Facebook!
via might also make sense:
Stay connected on the go via Facebook.
Since this is slang-ish marketing-speak, in the spirit of Googling a topic, or when you inbox someone, you could always verb the word; as in
Facebook us to stay connected!
In the next year = at some time in the next 12 months. "I plan to start learning French in the next year."
For the next year = for the whole of the year. "Mr Smith was elected chairman for the next year."
Over the next year could mean the same, or at intervals during the year. "He will chair ten meetings over the next year."
"Does it signify before the end of April or at the beginning of April?"
Most probably the writer is being imprecise because s/he probably doesn't know when the 700 figure was attained other than it was before the end of April.
I think all options are permissible but not equally desirable. It depends on personal preference and style. The most common usage would be "It was April". This contrasts April with other months i.e. it wasn't May. "It was an April" suggests maybe that the writer can't remember which April it was. Doesn't necessarily seem wrong to me but contains an ...
I tell my students that the choice of preposition depends on whether the following noun represents the subject or the object of the verb.
Based on your research, we have made the following decision.
We made a decision on the basis of your research. (introducing the 'subject')
Your research was the basis for our decision. (introducing the 'object')
Historical economic, meteorological, and hydrological data
conveys the idea that 'historical' modifies each set of data, though for absolute clarity the 'historical' can be repeated.
'Meteorological, hydrological, and historical economic data' clearly defines the data sets if only the third is 'historical'.
This result can be explained by A ...
As it stands the sentence is OK. Omitting "of" is possible, but I doubt many native BrE speakers would do so.
There is a non-rule that a sentence should not end in a preposition, which has been debunked here on several posts for example here, but if you were writing this formally you could say "This is something of which we were not notified"
"Turning off" had previously been used as a euphemism for hanging One from the neck until dead--as the condemned was often "turned" off of an object or structure, extinguishing their light. As the expression "turn off the light" predates the the use of turning on the lights, it may be that "turn on the lights" was simply the adoption of an expression that ...
Both the variants described can be seen as deleted forms:
John and Jane went together like peas in a pod.
John and Jane went together like peas in a pod go together.
John and Jane went together as if peas in a pod.
John and Jane went together as if they were peas in a pod.
There's little to choose between these (original) ...
It's amazing how much some people can 'talk' without actually answering the OP's question. The answer is yes, the quoted phrasing is ambiguous, and no, no native English speaker would use the phrasing “I am getting married with my sister” because it is so ambiguous.
The explanations of why that is so are all over this page, so I won't repeat them.
The problem with your sentence is that it is saying the success is what falls on the executives, but what it should say somehow is that finding the path falls on them.
It could be reorganized like:
The success of these strategies depends on finding a path to profitability, which often falls on executives.
An entirely different option would be chaning ...
"Rama married Sita" can have two meanings, either that Rama and Sita got married to each other, or that Rama carried out the ceremony in which Sita was married to someone else. However, it would nearly always be interpreted in the former way unless there is some context indicating that it should actually be interpreted in the latter (as an aside: I have fun ...
A side story - when I was learning Latin, I had trouble figuring out how to translate the ablative, a case that was often translated with by or with. So, for example, does
rēx armīs mīlitum interfectus est
mean "the king was killed by the weapons of the soldiers" or "the king was killed with the weapons of the soldiers"? Latin grammar might break it ...
As a native English speaker I feel that "with my sister" is too vague and confusing unless I already knew details about the wedding. I wouldn't really understand what the speaker meant if I had little or no prior knowledge about the wedding.
If I saw an old friend that I hadn't seen in a long time and then asked him how his life was going and he responded ...
It shows there is an implied ending that the listener already understands. For example, if I said, "Would you like me to give you a ride to the airport," you might respond, "I'd love you to" or maybe just "Love you to." I know that you'd love me to ... take you to the airport.
As for what the title means, well, you'll have to figure out what the Beatles ...
Contrary to many of the answers and comments, "married with" is a fairly common substitute for "married to" in colloquial English, especially among children, lower class, or less-educated speakers. Depending on my knowledge of the speaker, I might expect "married with" was an intentional distinction from "married to", but I would say it definitely qualifies ...
The correct phrasing for the “with my sister” variant is “I am having a double wedding with my sister”, and the past tense would be “I had a double wedding with my sister”.
Married with sister is going to be understood as some kind of mistake (your sister attended your wedding, you attended your sisters wedding) or possible just what it sounds like: you ...
Objectively speaking, according to Google Books Ngram Viewer, stay tuned to our is the only phrase with any hits when looking at the printed word. (And this is comparing on, to, and in.)
Strangely, despite the results claim that it "yielded only one result," if you click stay tuned to our at the bottom of the results page, you'll find multiple instances of ...
On hearing the second sentence, I would assume the speaker meant married to and made a mistake.
The reason for thinking that is that there are countless possibilities of expressing being married at the same time as someone else. When you want to say that, you mean to emphasise the time aspect, so it seems natural to focus on that.
Some clear ways of ...
In this situation the object of to refers almost exclusively to who the subject is married to.
A Corpus of Contemporary American English search turns up 5778 collocations of "married to," and all of the ones I've looked at identify a married couple. "I got married to Priscilla" would mean that you and Priscilla became spouses. This is the normative advice ...
I would definitely agree there's a difference between getting married "to" someone and getting married "with" someone, but for the latter case, a native speaker might think you just misspoke. Marriage ceremonies where multiple couples get married at the same time are very uncommon, so the act of getting married "with" someone is exceedingly rare. So rare, in ...
There is also "stay tuned in".
Each of these three is something of an anachronistic idiom, as the "tuned" used to refer literally to the tuning of the radio receiver. This carried forward easily when television came onto the scene, since TVs originally received broadcasts, like radios do. With cable TV, webpages, podcasts, and such, literal "tuning" is ...