Hippo

What about IP-telephone cards?

Hi Armie480, Thank you for the infomation. :) Have a nice day!

Hi, as far as I remember, the proper form to be used here is the infinitive form without particle "to." Gerund can't be used here. Check grammer guide for details.

Hi, 1. d) is the only subordinate conjunction here. You need a conjunction to connect two clauses into a sentence. 2. verb "enjoy" demands direct object 3. "they are needed = someone needs them" has no sense in this sentence, and, moreover, it is grammatically incorrect.

Hi, How do you think is it grammatically right to use "no" in the following sentence. This number is no(?) greater than that. Actually, since "no" basically modifies nouns it seems to be wrong. However, may be this is possible in some context? Any ideas are greatly appreciated.

Hi there, I have the following sentence. "We divide this piece into two parts so that one part complement (complements ?) the current knapsack and the remaining part go (goes ? )" to the next empty knapsack." The question is whether subordinating conjunction "so that" with a meaning of purpose used in this sentence requires verbs in the subordinate clause to be in subjunctive mood? Any ideas are welcome. Best regards, Hippo

Hi, I'd say that in this case an infinitive construction "to tell me [that] I am funny" is used as an object complement for the object "person." So much the more all the remaining options are grammatically incorrect as you've pointed out. Best regards, Hippo

Thank you for the link. There is something in getting a peice of information from the person who doesn't respect you. :-) Wish you to be more polite in the real life. :-) Have a nice stay. :-)

1-2. I don't agree on that. Gettting knowledge is not a two chain process when you first understand the phenomenon and then explain it. More likely it is a spiral. Investigator try to understand the phenomenon as far as he can, then he builds some model(explanation). As soon as the model stops to satisfy him, he trys to find different explanation. Admit that he uses his first model as long as it satisfies him. Here, the first understanding of a phenomenon is often not the best(in different senses) and even after some time seems to be "naive"(See first greek explanations of the universe, humanity and so on). However, it is still a neccesary step. The reference to the philosophy of science seems quite funny in this context. There is no ultimate general philosophy covering even topic of science. It has sense to discuss particular schools and particular persons with their approaches. Given this, point 3 of your post seems to be irrelevant as it is without a reference to the competing theories which are assumed to be known by the opponent engaging the opposite point. Back to the "formal-informal" issue. I claim that it might be useful because: 1. "formal" ussage are widely covered in the literature. 2. Probabilily to be understood by the native speaker and non-native english learner is high. It is the classification. The explanation of the phenomenon here could be as follows: Natives are taught to speak "formal" in their schools. Thus , major part of natives will always understand these formal usage. What's wrong with it? Finally, sometimes people confuse the politeness with the weakness. I asked you about the link not because I was highly impressed with your arguments but just to clarify if I can find the proposed book in the Net to look through it just because I'm a curious person.

I agree that language is not a formula which having been written once remains constant forever. So much the more the grammer being a science can't deal with all pure experience in its "raw" state. Inevitably some models it uses sacrifice details in order to describe the phenomenon of interest in contrast. Of couse if one is able to apply more complex general models classifying his expierience he will get more benefits in a particular situation. The other aspect is that who are those misterious "native speakers" we are talking about? US sitizens? UK residents? I vote for the russian english learners ;-) it would be much more convinient for me. ;-) Furthermore, there are much more people who speak english than those who have english as their native language. Should we forget non-native speakers in order to save pure native experience? ;-) Note that most of them study language using those ad hoc books and consequently use more formal language comparing to the natives. (3) Don't know ;-) Would you be so kind to post a link if there is one?

So if the thing is too obvious to handle it is useless ;-) I'd say it's a nice stand ;-) though it's pretty straight for a native speaker whatever primary language he possess. ;-) So a native speaker can't be a formal interlocuter ... it's also a nice point of view. ;-) Well, of couse, if one desire to resemble the native speaker of particular target group (admit that event in US local accents can differ so that even two native speakers have difficulties to understand each other) he is welcome to do that. ;-) However, in most cases this approach has no sense. Finally, each person has his own gods, smart one assumes that there might be others except his own.

Admit that if one's English isn't perfect he should better use the formal constructions because the probability to distort the sense of the sentence is less. In general it's a nice question. ;-) The following analogy came to my head. If you are not sure that your interlocutor is in a right mood it's better to be polite then to make jokes.

Hi Wacika, The first one is correct. The verb "to be" is used in subjunctive mood in your example. The reason is that this is the conditional sentence. Hippo

Hi, I'd better say "It is crusial to ensure people's driving on the left in London" if you want to use infinitive. However, your sentence is correct too. "It is crusial to ensure [that] people drive on the left in London". The second sentence seems ok to me. But you can't use infinitive in it. Here the pattern is: to be crucial TO "TO" is a preposition(not a particle) here. Some object is needed after it. Hippo

I agree that the first is correct. Treat "where you should live" as a noun clause. In fact, it is a noun clause. Here it plays a role of the subject. Where you should live is New York. This city is New York. All that he has been talking about last 5 days is New York. But I'd better say something like: The city you should live in is New York.