I found an interesting quote in this .     I believe if we love something and have fun, we tend to self teach and   learn at a rapid rate. I also consider confusion a starting state for   learning. It opens us to new patterns emerging. - Author: Todd Rice   Is it necessary to insert an "as" into "consider confusion a starting state" which produces "consider confusion as a starting state"?  ... or thanks to , insert "to be" into "consider confusion a starting state" which produces "consider confusion to be a starting state"?  The key is to insert something, in case someone has unclear pronunciation, low voice.
120411
In The Elements of Style, the authors give this example:     She thought the study of Latin a waste of time.   I cannot understand why the verb is has been omitted. Should not this sentence be as:     She thought the study of Latin is a waste of time.
85157
The following sentence is from a mathematical lecture note :     It takes a little bit of getting used to the idea of a function that cannot actually be evaluated at any specific point, but with some practice you will find that it will not cause any significant conceptual difficulty.   Is there anything wrong with this sentence? I guess it is supposed to be "It takes a little bit of time for getting used to the idea...". Any idea for understanding the sentence?
85248
Can anyone give a cogent, simply described explanation of why the verb BE in:  What is it?  ... doesn't seem to be able to be contracted with the subject:  What's it? *  Compare the sentences above with:  What's this? What's that?  These are perfectly fine. In fact, the contractions here should be expected in almost all examples of spoken English. Answers with references to authoritative vetted sources would be greatly appreciated.
113474
Many questions have been asked and answered about "to + bare infinitive" vs "for + gerund" in the middle of a sentence.  However, when one wants to start explaining something, what is better? For instance:  "Now, let us focus on baking the bread.   To do this, start by turning the oven on.", or For doing this, start by turning the oven on."?   Are there even better expressions? I have not found anything concerning this situation, and I feel that the answers about the same problem but in the middle of a sentence do not apply here.
60045
My teacher recently marked on my paper not to use a gerund to start a sentence. I have been told by teachers in the past to use that format to vary sentence structure. It seems to make the paper flow better oftentimes. An example:     Learning to confront his problems is an important part of [character's] growth and maturity in the novel.   Is there a grammar rule about this? I haven't ever heard/seen one before.  Edit: It would also be helpful to know of any good examples or arguments I would be able to use when discussing this.
28168
With seemingly increasing frequency I come across a phrase using 'learn' when I think it should be 'teach'.  The classic example is 'that will learn them!', as in "Shoot all criminals - that will learn them!". I thought this was being deliberately wrong for comedic effect, in keeping with the general sentiment of the sentence.  Another example from a Stack Exchange site (http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/53880/stuff-you-should-have-learned-in-school-but-didnt-pay-attention-to-at-the-time)     I don't know if you can learn someone   to write at this age   Am I being overly fussy/old fashioned or is this just wrong?
40538
For example, I found the following sentence written by a native English speaker (UK) so I'm going to assume that he knows how to put it the right way, although I wouldn't use this form.     I now have a bit more time to fix bugs   etc but I'm open to offers if anyone   wants to help maintain this module   with me?   Is it correct or is the question mark misused here?
59083
One of my favorite quotes is by Alvin Toffler which says:     The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read   and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.   The way I understand "relearn" in the quote is to learn something new that is different from what was originally learned.  I'm wondering in general if "relearn" convey learning the same thing again, or a different thing, or it depends on the context of the sentence. Is the same thing true for "learn again"?
91287
When you do not know a fact you are ignorant.  My question is what would you call the state of   believing you know something that is false.   For instance suppose I see a black box and having opened it earlier, I know there is a rabbit in it.  Some time later unbeknownst to me someone   removes the rabbit.  I still 'know' there is a rabbit in the box.   What do you call this state?
114430
Consider the next idiom:     Go back to square one   For me, as a non-native speaker, putting the in front of square one sounds equally good as not putting it at all. But, when I speak with native speakers, for them saying the before square one sounds as a broken English.  On the other hand, if I take an another example:     There are a few problems. The first one is ...   My question is, what is the difference? Why in the case of idiom the should not be said, but in the second case it has to be said?
98318
I'm not sure I understand what establishes a mood. Does a sentence have to establish a mood at the begining or can a mood be established in a clause at the end?     And, that's if he could get elected after 35% of Americans turned out in opposition to both parties and a new popular movement was seeded.   Or,      And, that's if he could get elected after 35% of Americans turned out in opposition to both parties and a new popular movement were seeded.   In both of these we're talking about a scenario that doesn't exist. The top one clearly sounds more right to me.
124103
Are 'begin' and 'start' interchangeable? Both &quot;This is a new start&quot; and &quot;This is a new beginning&quot; work, right? Then during games, they say &quot;Let's start&quot;, but I never heard &quot;Let's begin&quot;. So is there supposed to be a difference? And then one guy said this &quot;They could not begin to start a conversation&quot;. What is this supposed to mean? Is it correct?
47129
If "I'm thinking" is correct, why isn't "I'm knowing" correct in formal English?  think+ing = thinking is correct know+ing  = knowing isn't correct   Why?
4411
I am pretty much sure that for native speakers the issue I am going to bring up might look as an uncalled question as they can easily figure out which form of a verbal part of speech should be used, be it a gerund, an infinitive, or a bare infinitive. However, it can be pretty much misleading for a foreigner because the same construction works differently with different words and I don’t see a logical explanation. For example:  The purpose of this article is to analyze the issue…  My hobby is reading. One may assume, and many foreigners really come to this conclusion, that it’s OK to switch the “gerund” and “infinitive” as the meaning will stay the same, that is:  The purpose of this article is analyzing the issue… (same as 1 above)  My hobby is to read. (same as 2 above)   However, as I was told, this assumption is erroneous. Another example: His task was watching after them. (not good) His task was to watch after them. Is there any principle which governs the choice of the right form in such cases?
41013
This is something that confuses me from time to time. When making an analogy in literature, is it better to use the phrase "as if" or "as though", or is it completely a style thing?  E.g.      She looked frazzled, as if she had just gotten off of a roller coaster.   or     She looked frazzled, as though she had just gotten off of a roller coaster.
89112
As always, while reading through I found a sentence whose structure confused me.  What I want to know is whether the first sentence is the inversion form of the second sentence.      1. If the reason was to avoid bad publicity should his error be discovered, then . . .      2. If the reason was his error be discovered to avoid bad publicity, then . . .   If not, how should I interpret the first sentence?  Thanks.
106982
I pursue only intuition; please do not answer with  or . I comprehend the following explanation, but it still does not supply the intuition and I sense a deeper, directer, more intuitive explanation. So how else can I intuit this? Or have I neglected something below? I rewrote: p 51-52.  (2010 2 ed) by Henle, Garfield, Tymoczko.    If the kid misbehaves and the teacher forces him to stay, then the teacher spoke truthfully. Suppose the kid misbehaves but travels. Then clearly the teacher lied. But what if the kid misbehaves, but a big snowstorm forces the trip’s cancellation? You can’t say the teacher lied. The kid behaved but didn’t go; nobody went. The teacher spoke truthfully. 1. If the kid behaved and travels, the teacher spoke truthfully.  Notice that the pattern of Ts and Fs we get, is the pattern for disjunction (see p. 38).