Polonius' previous line is:
You shall do marvelously wisely,
Before you visit him, to make
Of his behavior.
"It" refers to his son's behavior. Polonius is asking Reynaldo to ask around about Danish people in Paris, being vague about who in particular he wants to know about or how he knows of him. In doing so, Polonius hopes ...
From my days of Shakespeare study (quite long ago, I admit), I don't have a firm answer. Polonius is giving the instruction that to be circumspect will get closer to the truth about his son Laertes -- this could be as, you suggest, the "It." However, I think it can also be parsed that "it" is what circumspection is meant to hide -- the fact that Reynaldo ...
A Daniel come to judgment!
Note first that this is not a sentence, a finite clause, but an exclamatory noun phrase, just like the immediately following Yea, a Daniel!. Come to judgment isn't a predicate but an adjectival modifying Daniel.
Your "perfect tense with the auxiliary verb omitted" is a pretty good guess: lots of linguists treat come to judgment ...
The infinitive (or perhaps it should be analyzed as the subjunctive?) gives a sense of completion, while the gerund gives more of a sense of process. So "There is a new approach to solving homelessness" indicates that the approach will help work on the problem of homelessness, while "There is a new approach to solve homelessness" implies that it will ...
I believe the problem you’re having is due to the fact that because your first sentence is so linguistically incorrect, the second sentence—regardless of how you word it—is also going to be incorrect.
Assuming your first sentence is just the second part of a whole sentence (it would’ve been better if you had written the whole sentence in order to have the ...
The supervisor's edit is ungrammatical because it uses two Determiners within the same immediate noun phrase. As shown below, this is ungrammatical in modern English:
*the my car
The full story:
the slimy dinosaurs
Noun phrases come in two chunks. They have a Determiner and a Head. In (1) above, the Determiner is the word the, and the ...
Peter Jennings answered part of the question. For the other part, if John is a person it should be
We went in John's car.
But you didn't use a capital letter, and if john is slang for a client it should be
We went in the john's car.
Of course, you would not use john to mean a reputable business client.
Short answer - you are right, your supervisor is wrong.
However he could have said
"Here, we will use the Kukhtarev model to describe the ..."
The possessive is not used in this version.
So it's either "Kukhtarev's model" or "the Kukhtarev model"
John, Bob, and Sue all are hungry.
The "all" is separable and not part of the subject NP but an adjunct in clause structure. This is evident from the fact that when the verb is an auxiliary, as it is here, it preferentially follows rather than precedes it, as in "John, Bob and Sue" are all hungry".
Note also the possibility of inserting an adjunct after ...
The subject and helping verb "it is" are implied in this sentence for emphasis on how the preceding sentence and this sentence are connected.
[It is] fitting, then, that the office-rental firm's abortive listing [...] threatens a financial shredding for its mastermind[.]
Why does "too good" have to come before the determiner in this kind of construction? And parenthetically, is there a term for this particular syntax?
I can't really answer the 'why' question, because it's simply the way English works. Somehow, English has this construction, and grammarians use the term 'predeterminer' or 'predeterminer modifier' to describe ...
In this question, the answer is the subject.
Questions often reverse the typical syntactic order of noun then verb. Subject-auxillary inversion is frequently employed in English to form questions.
The question at hand can be dissected and reassembled as:
The answer is what?
Had it been phrased in this more awkward but grammatically correct manner, ...