Thank you for your A2A. And I am sorry to hear of your loss.Let's look at some correct sentences:Everyday American English Correct: We came home to find my father dead in his bed. I remember my mother's screams caused many of our neighbors to come over and see what happpened. (This is how Americans tend to say tthis sentence. And more and more writers are writing sentences like this.)Standard American English Correct: We came home to find my father dead in his bed. I remember that my mother's screams caused many of our neighbors to come over to see what happened. (That “that” is unnecessary. We know we did the screaming.)Standard American English Correct: We came home to find my father dead in his bed. I remember my mother's screams’ causing many of our neighbors to come over to see what happened. (Here “causing” is a noun: “Causing” is the possession of screams while the screams are the possession of your mother. This double possessive construction is awkward at best.)So the Best Answer is the first sentence. This is how we speak and how we are starting to write the sentence. Blessings.
I think Strunk and White overstate their case against this conjoined conjunction, but it's worth quoting The Elements of Style for a baseline negative opinion:Blah blah blah, never use the unspeakable monstrosity "and/or" because, like, really, let's face it? you probably just meant to say "and" or "or," and slashes are a blight upon the written page. Did you know I wrote Charlotte's Web? Well, keep omitting those needless words, kids.I've paraphrased this, because I can't find my copy of that pretentious old rag of a handbook.Whether or not "and/or" is grammatical, it is undeniably useful. The reason for its continued (mis)use is that the English word "or" has two distinct meanings:the inclusive "or {a, b}," meaning "not neither of {a, b}," andthe exclusive "or {a, b}," meaning "exactly one of {a, b}."The "and/or" construct exists to concisely[1] emphasize that the communicator intends the first of these two meanings.[1] Yeah, I split that infinitive. What.
Sir Stan Sea saw seven speds sitting straight stylishly slurping sloppy sauce staining several shirts, so sir stan sea sold several stained shirts south sudan, seperately selling several sausage stained shirts south sevilla, spain, suspending seven speds selling sloppy sauce south senegal, surprisingly scaring several speds stealing sloppy sauce south Sydney, several speds said sorry, surprisingly sir stan sea said stealing = suspension.
Grammatically speaking, it is possible. Sentences can be classified as declarative, imperative, exclamatory and interrogative based on their function.Declarative : A verb or an auxiliary verb(am, is, are, etc) must be present.Imperative: A verb must be present, generally in its simple present tense.Interrogative: An auxiliary verb must be present(had, have, is, are, etc)Exclamatory: A verb is not necessary. e.g.:- Oh my God!, Ouch!, etc.In formal writing, exclamatory sentences are generally reduced to clauses. Adverbial phrases(not again, in the room,etc) are also clauses and cannot be counted as a sentence. Hence, you can't construct a sentence without a verb in formal writing.The more, the merrier.The sooner, the better.These phrases are classified as nominal sentences. The missing verb 'to be' is implied. Such sentences are common in slang and casual speech.System shutdown in 60 seconds.Missile launch in 300 seconds.These sentences are grammatically incorrect. They are automated warnings and are supposed to convey a clear message using the least number of words. Grammar is not important in this case. They can be rewritten as : System will shut down in 60 seconds.Missile will launch in 300 seconds.Newspaper headlines also use incomplete sentences at times. They shorten the sentence. 'Jones winner' rather than 'Jones is the winner.'
Is this sentence grammatically correct?
Your sentence is not grammatically correct, because it certainly does have a dangling modifier [as Americans call it], or an unrelated participle [as we British call it]. The dangling modifier is at the beginning of your sentence, where it should not be. Your sentence should be written like this: Lucy kept talking to me, as we all watched the film in the theater, from a few seats away.
Which is grammatically correct?
Arguments exist to support each construction. The central question here should concern what you will appreciate, the person or the investigation. In both sentences, "we" serves as the subject, "would appreciate" serves as the verb, and "very much" modifies that verb. The verb employs the present tense, simple aspect, subjunctive mode and active voice. This is a transitive verb, which means that it expects a direct object. In the first sentence, "you" serves as the direct object, and the gerund phrase "looking into this matter" serves as the object complement. In the second sentence, "your" serves to modify the direct object, and that direct object is the gerund phrase. In my case I find it much more likely that I will appreciate the investigation and its results. I probably won't even be aware of any person involved in looking into that matter. I will appreciate some looking into the matter, any looking into the matter, as long as it's not my looking into the matter. I hope this explains why many style guides recommend "your" over "you" in a structure like this. The grammar of both may be sound, but the meaning of the second is more applicable.
Is this sentence gramatically correct?
Either one construction or the other, your choice. They both sound equally correct. But the way you have it written now is incorrect. One problem i found with your sentence "my academic interest of health" sounds awkward. it incorporates my passion for sports as well as my ... interest in health. Preposition usage is very idiomatic, so it isn't that easy to memorize rules.
Is this sentence gramatically correct?
Should an individual take such an opportunity more than once? The plural phrase "such opportunities" suggests this, but the singular "a small independent business" doesn't. I would recommend making these two phrases agree. - Individuals should take the chance to invest in or purchase small independent businesses, should such opportunities arise. - Individuals should take the chance to invest in or purchase a small independent business, should such an opportunity arise. The verb in the main clause of the sentence is "should take". The "should" in this verb is a modal auxiliary expressing obligation. The verb in the adverbial clause is "should arise". The "should" in this verb is also a modal auxiliary, but in this case it, especially with its placement at the beginning of the clause, indicates the subjunctive mode -- specifically the subjunctive mode in a conditional sense. There are two situations in which it is natural to begin a clause with an auxiliary. One is when the clause is in the interrogative mode, and the other is when the clause is in the subjunctive mode. These modes stand in contrast with the indicative. A clause in the indicative mode is a statement of fact. A clause in the interrogative mode is a question rather than a statement. A clause in the subjunctive mode is a statement contrary to fact. -- Such opportunities arise. -- A statement of fact. -- Should such opportunities arise? -- Not a statement of fact, but a question. -- Should such opportunities arise, you can take them -- Not a statement of fact, but a statement of possibility.
Yes.It’s grammatically correct.Though the sentence contains a split infinitive “to easily name,” it’s still acceptable and—further—there’s no workable alternative to that construction. The sentence would be far more awkward if “easily” were moved, and the meaning could change. If you wrote “We want to name the dogs easily,” the meaning would be less clear (Do you want to name the dogs “Easily” and “Difficultly”?) and having “easily” so far separated from “name” isn’t desirable.Note: If this is a test or school assignment, please review your notes dealing with your teacher’s instructions on proper grammar. It’s possible that your teacher would declare the sentence as being incorrect.
Is this sentence grammatically correct? ‘This would have not been possible if you had not been here.’It's correct (except for a microscopic error).The word ‘not’ should have been placed between would and have.This would not have been possible if you had not been here.’Alternatively you may express it as, (especially if it's a spoken exchange),‘This wouldn't have been possible if you hadn't been here.’OrHad you NOT been here, this wouldn't have been possible. ( Emphasis)