Japanese grammatical structure?
I'll try to break this down again and hopefully answer your questions in the progress. 花火は、火薬と金属の粉末を混ぜたものに火を付け、燃焼時の花火を楽しむためのも... Aは、＜lots of clauses>を楽しむもの。 A is something which allows you to enjoy
Grammatical structures!?
I wonder this might help you: Common English grammar mistakes in Mexico. Just click on the big plus sign at the top of the page to make the type bigger to read -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/905700/Tcommon... Lazzy, you're as good as some of the natives at it ;)
What are the most common grammatical structures for sentences in different languages?
The two most common word-orders are Subject-Verb-Object and Subject-Object-Verb. Here's a list of SVO languages: List of SVO Languages Here's a list of SOV languages: List of SOV Languages But "grammatical structures" is a more inclusive category than "word-order," and so your question might require a more detailed answer than a conlanger with an old Linguistics B.A. can give. Here are a couple of links that address your question much better than I can. Page on www.uio.no WALS Online -
What grammatical structure is the italicized portion of the sentence?
regardless of the very shown fact that my previous practise did not comprise the study of merchandising, interior the final month I even have been self-discovering the person-friendly factors of merchandising - person-friendly layout, reproduction making plans and so on. i'm very lots drawn to a place with XXXX, and have faith I even have the aptitude to do nicely interior the region if given a great gamble.
Which of these grammatical structures require objective pronouns?
These require object pronouns: direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition, object of a verbal, appositive of a noun used as an object.
What is the grammatical structure of "it is of something," and what does it mean?
@ it: a subject pronoun. It refers to something singular that is neither the speaker nor being talked to. Or it is just a placeholder because every grammatical sentence needs a subject.@ is: the form of "be" that goes with "it" in the present tense. It may be a copula (which "means" by way of establishing some sort of identifying connection between "it" and that which follows -- a subject complement or an adjective) or an auxiliary (so that the aforementioned present tense may turn out to be a present perfect or in the passive voice).@ of something: a prepositional phrase. With its rather unspecific pronoun "something", it is not possible to give this a meaning without much guesswork. "Of" may be described as denoting possession, belonging, being part of something. It gets more specific meanings with other verbs that may be omitted here for poetical effect or limited vocabulary.One meaning I can think of is origin: "Its mother was of the Earth, its father was of the sky, and it is of the universe (and you know what it's worth)" (I'm sorry, John). Another one is material. The thing that is made of something would be the subject complement, which is omitted, and that subject complement has an underlying participle phrase that would make the meaning unequivocal, but is also omitted, so that I actually understand the phrase to be "It is {a ring [made]] of something."
What is the grammatical structure of the phrase "used to" (e.g. "I used to paint.")?
The original question is:What is the grammatical structure of the phrase "used to" (e.g. "I used to paint.")?Answer:Used to (modal verb) American English definition and synonyms http://www.macmillandictionary.c...Used to is usually followed by an infinitive: We used to swim in the river. But sometimes the following infinitive is left out: I don’t play golf now, but I used to.Note: Used to only exists as a past tense.Questions and negatives are usually formed with “did” + use to (with no “d”):Did you use to work here?We didn’t use to earn much.In formal English, negatives are often formed with used not to: They used not to allow stores to be open on Sundays.What does "used to" mean ?https://www.usingenglish.com/for...FIfty years ago, 'educated' speakers used used to almost as a modal verb, and the 'correct' negative was used not to - it was rarely contracted to usedn't to. There are still some people who construct negative and interrogative forms in this way. Most speakers have always constructed these forms with 'did'; the correct negative is didn't use to. However, in the spoken language, this sounds identical to didn't used to, and some people, incorrectly, write didn't used to.
English Grammar- Sentence Structure Question?
Hey, I have been learning English for over 10 years ( reader/writer ) and I've got a question with regard to the sentence structure. if I want to turn a sentence into passive voice in the prefect continuous form, is it possible to write it this way? simple present: The construction workers build this office -ACTIVE This office is built by the construction workers - PASSIVE continuous present: The construction workers are building this office-ACTIVE This office is being built by the the construction workers- PASSIVE perfect present: The construction workers have built this office-ACTIVE This office has been built by the construction workers-PASSIVE continuous present prefect: The construction workers have been building this office-ACTIVE This office has been being built by the the construction workers- PASSIVE I am not sure of the latest structure; it sounds weird, but it's grammatically correct - In my opinion - can we really use this form? The construction workers were building this office
How many grammar structures are there in English?
This question can’t be answered because we don’t know the answer to a related question:How do we count “grammatical structures”?Answers might vary from one (put two words together to make a phrase, repeat), to many thousands.This is an interesting topic in linguistic research: Daniel Ross's answer to What is the most grammatically complex language in the world?