The entire sentence would be something like:     The Center will be established by March of 2015.   I feel confident writing "in March of 2015", but this sentence must convey the fact that at any time up to and including March the Center may be established, but not after.
12878
I have read the Rules of a competition. The text of the Rules include a sentence as follows:     As per stated in the Rules the entrants will be notified by May 30th 2010.   Does the sentence above mean that May 30th is included in the term of notification or not?
45661
I would like to start planning for next year.   In the above sentence, there is no definite article before the words next year. Should it be present, as in the following sentence which sounds far less natural to me?     I would like to start planning for the next year.   Or, is it more proper to leave it out as in the first sentence? What is the reasoning behind the correct usage in this context?
123917
The single sentence:     The novel tells the story of a salesman.   Can I say:      The novel tells a story of a salesman?   I chose a story, but the answer is the story.
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.
113999
I have seen this sentence in an article on bbc, which is about how people lived thousands of years ago. &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it would have had a cosy roof of turf..&quot; When I read it, I got confused. Because the fact seems as a simple past situation or guessing/assumption about something in the past. it simply gives information about a past event, eg &quot;when I was a child, I had a blue toy car. I have been making a lot of research on whether or not this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; could be used instead of the simple past or &quot;must+have+past participle&quot;, but I could not find any satisfying explanation. Almost all grammer contents cover this structure is used when we imagine the opposite of what actually happened in the past eg. &quot;referring to a missed opportunity&quot; (eg. &quot;if you had come to the party, you would have seen Tom.&quot;), But, in this case of this sentence, &quot;type 3 conditional&quot; is irrelevant. It is not an if sentence,  It simply gives information about how this house was like or was probably like when it was built long ago. Just like it would be If and old lady would want to tell about &quot;how she was like when she was a child years ago. she would simply say &quot;when I was a child, I had long curly hair.**. So &quot;when I was a child, I would have had long curly hair.&quot; would be wrong. So, my question is: 1-Does this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; completely replace simple past sentences? or can be it be used instead of simple past? 2- If this structure was simply used because the author was not %100 sure about the fact as it was a long long time ago -so he wanted to make a guess or assumption, why did he not simply use &quot;must+have+past participle&quot; or &quot;it was likely that blah blah&quot; which must be used for guessing or assumptions about past happenings. Would it not have made more sense if it was like: &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it must have had a cosy roof of turf.
20969
In this sentence:     The commission commanded that work on the building should cease.   Why isn't the used before the word work? It seems that the work is specified by on the building.  Another example is,     Construction of the building will start next week.   I understand construction here is something like putting up the building, and so the construction isn’t general in meaning. But the definite article isn’t used here, either.  I’ve asked about this several times, but none gave me a good answer.
19636
I've met the following phrase:     Something happened on February 12-25, 2010.    It means that some event started on February 12th and ended on February 25th. Actually the text was about the Olympic Games. Is it correct to use the preposition on here? And how should it be pronounced in oral speach? Thank you in advance.
93454
Consider the following passages:  A litter made of two rifles and two field jackets would suffice for now. That was good news; another bit was that the EPW was a lieutenant, a regimental REMF attached to a battalion quartered in town. --Rangers Lead the Way By Thomas H. Taylor, Robert J. Martin He had a couple of thousand dollars on him that would suffice for the time being, until he could find some kind of legal employment. He got out ofthe car, and walked a block. --The Maze By Kahn Morris  Now, how are these expressions different? Could we use them interchangeably? Oxford Dictionary of English has the following definitions for them,  for now until a later time: that's all the news there is for now; for the time being for the present; until some other arrangement is made.
65502
At the beginning of a sentence is obvious.  I'm referring to the following examples:        A handful of earth.   The earth under this house.   The earth beneath my feet.   What on earth?   The heavens above and the earth below.   The earth moved.   We returned quickly to earth.      Lower: 1,2,3,4 Upper: 7 Not sure: 5,6
88561
I just recently read this paragraph: "Think of an ad campaign that you still remember long after viewing it. Consider a book that might have inspired you. Behind those memories are solid writing."  I would say grammatically, the subject of that bolded sentence is "writing," and "behind those memories" is a prepositional phrase modifying "writing." Therefore, the verb would be "is" not "are" since it needs to agree with the subject. (solid writing, which is singular).  But even if it were changed to "Behind those memories is solid writing," I still find the sentence awkward. I am trying to figure out how I would reword, but perhaps, I am wrong, and it is fine as is.
7603
I cannot make much sense of one in the following passage from :  Now the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline one for the present, hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  If  is a noun in this passage, then  must serve here as a pronoun. If so, isn't the sentence lacking in punctuation? Rewriting would make it less ambiguous:  Now the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline, one for the present hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  Furthermore, I can't help thinking that one is not needed here at all:  Now, the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline for the present, hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  If Melville correctly worded this sentence, what is the function of one in it? What are your thoughts on my modifications?
10741
They agreed to stay connected for hours in their provisional support group, looking for answers in their counterparts.   I want to change the bold part to say that they all shared the same problem.  Might end up using one of the above, but I feel like I need some more options to weigh in.    Edit for context: they all share the same rare cognitive impairment
110501
I read this  and this one is different because the second clause is in present tense.  I'm born and brought up in India. - too commonly practiced in India.  I was born in India is correct over I'm born in India. I am pretty clear on that, but then if I want to include brought up which is still effective (present), how do I say that?  I was born and brought up in India. - does not relate the sentence to the present time then. As both are in past I was born in India + I was brought up in India. - no. I AM brought up in India, I'm still here.
37461
Some sentences begin with a construction like "May I suggest that...." These are phrased as questions but are really statements. Should such a sentence end with a question mark or a period [full stop] (and what is the rationale)?
120971
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.   sbj: fathers         det: our vrb: brought forth         obj: nation                 det: a                 adj: new                 adj: *conceived*                         adv: &lt;in&gt;                                 obj: liberty                 cnj: and                 adj: *dedicated*                         adv: &lt;to&gt;                                 obj: proposition                                         det: the                                         adj: -that-                                                 sbj: men                                                         det: all                                                 vrb: are created                                                         cmp: equal         adv: &lt;on&gt;                 obj: continent                         det: this         adv: ...?   I'm working on this but can't wrap my head around the phrase in bold. I know that it's adverbial phrase of time, but what kind of phrase is it exactly? What part of speech is 'ago'? Sources don't seem to agree.
10336
Is it correct to say:     1) I've lived in London for five years.   Or      2) I've been living in London for five years.   I think second one is correct because we use present perfect continuous for actions started in past and is continuing in present.
16954
Recently, while skimming through an article I came across a sentence which is as follows.  The five minute walk will connect you with life.  My rationale says it should have been &quot;five minutes&quot; and not &quot;five minute&quot;. Kindly advise where am I going wrong?