Does this sentence make sense and do native English speakers speak this way: "He abounds in wit"?
It makes perfect sense. I’m not sure it’s something most people would say in casual conversation, as if feels a little too formal (which can come off as pretentious) but it would be totally acceptable in writing.
Do English native speakers also say sentences wrong grammatically like 'Does she goes?' or 'Did you went?' What about kids who didn’t get into elementary school yet, and they just learned to put the words together to make sentences?
Irrespective of the nation native or non native speaker every one makes a mistake or two when it comes to ENGLISH language. A native speaker can make as many as mistakes owing to their careless attitude towards the language. English is a funny and an eccentric language. No body knows perfectly till today how to use a right and suitable preposition In a sentence formation especially a native speaker.In my opinion some Indians from different walks of life such as writers newscasters playwrights could speak the best language in any form whether it is speaking writing or oratory especially in terms of pronunciation as they have mastered the language concerned. Compared to the topical scenario olden usage happens to be the best one . now slang usage is in practice which exhibits a persons impatience. Some forty years ago before mobile phones pagers computers came into usage people used to strike up a qualitative conversation to impress the audience. Used to practise writing in the form of letter writing. In those days the post man was the most important and the most happening man. Hardly the present generation has the acquaintance with the post office or post man. Reading newspapers is one of the finest skills. Everything goes to ashtray. Once you master some art you are likely to develop some kind of pride and are compelled to commit some blunders that can't be noticed by you.Hence the native speakers are no exception not only in English but also in any native language.
Which sentence is correct and workable? Hope native English speakers help?
In sentence 1, since "misunderstanding" is used uncountably (since it's singular and common, but has no article), it would mean "the fact of failure to understand". Grammatically it's ok, but in practice it seems unlikely that by saying exactly what you mean, the other person would be less able to understand exactly what you mean. In sentences 2 and 3, "misunderstanding" is used countably (since it has "a" in 2 and is plural in 3), and as a countable noun it has a slightly different meaning, more of a lack of empathy. These would be grammatically correct and also make sense, since if you tell someone they look ugly in that dress, they know exactly what you're saying but they don't feel the love behind it. I think 3 sounds better than 2 because the sentence as a whole is basically a generalization, so it makes more sense to refer to more than one misunderstanding.
Native English speakers please help me with this!?
It's about a song: All my memories gather round her, miner's lady, stranger to blue water. Dark and dusty, painted on the sky, misty taste of moonshine, teardrop in my eye. Country roads, take me home to the place I belong. West Virginia, mountain momma, take me home, country roads. ***I hear her voice in the morning hour she calls me****, the radio reminds me of my home far away. 1) ***I hear her voice in the morning hour she calls me**** This line sounds like this to me: I hear her voice in the morning hours SHE CALLS ME - Not the hours she talks to my sister. "She calls me" is modifying "the morning hours". So, in this case, we could add a "when" before "shen calls me" to make it clearer as in sentence 2): 2) I hear her voice in the morning hours WHEN she calls me. Just like: 3) I went to Italy on the day WHEN he got a job there. Questions: How would sentence 1) sound to a native speaker of English? Is the "WHEN" in sentences 2)&3) necessary? Thanks a lot!
Is the sentence "you was." correct? I always hear many native English speakers said it.
Yes! It is called an imperfect tense on ASPECTHe/she/it was.They/you/we were.(aspects has differences comparing to tenses). They are apple and orange.Anyway, I did not hit the target!Let us deal with this predicament.“You” -it is a complicated word when it comes to verb conjugation topic.Is there reason to be correct the structure of “ you was”?It is Possible, because when we are just addressing a single person, rules favor telling that this structure is correct.Why “you were” is correct? ( in conditional or if-clause using were, disregarded the numbers of the subject is always correct; in addition to this, the “if” in conditional sentences can be illiminated, leaving the subject and the verb “were” keep standing on the line.At any time, we may connect sentences on conditional cases with “were”, (so just to be safe), “you were” becomes rampant to the speakers and writers.(If)you were (not here)/not alone/drunked, etc., …would +(bare infinitive)…
Native English speakers, could you please help me with these issues?
Do any of these sentences make any sense: a) "What are your thoughts BEFORE a scenery like this?" b) "What are your thoughts IN FRONT of a scenery like this?" c) "What are your thoughts TOWARDS a scenery like this?" d) "What are your thoughts IN THE PRESENCE OF a scenery like this?"
Native English speakers, could you please help me with these issues?
1. Do these sentence make sense: a) "Naturally, I thought soon about the worst." b) "I disagree soon in your first statement." 2. And in case they do, do the sentences mean the same as the following: a) "Naturally, I thought immediately about the worst. b) "I disagree immediately in your first statement." 3. In case the former two sentences are correct, is that the most natural way of expressing them?
Native English speakers, could you please help me with these issues?
1. Take into consideration the following sentence: "With a penchant for shirt-dresses, vivid hues and a knack for mixing both local and global designers, she's amassed a following of loyal style fans." Would the sentence still mean in the same with these changes: "With a TENDENCY for shirt-dresses, vivid hues and a knack for mixing both local and global designers, she's ACHIEVED a following of loyal style fans." 2. In case both sentences above mean the same, is any of those terms more formal than the other? (If so, which?)