The sentence I'm having problems with is " Since 1896 the Olympic Games (be held) ________ every four years with some exceptions." The answer key says it is "has been held". Why should it be the  singular form "has" instead of "have" as "Games" are plural,aren't they? Please explain to me why it should be "has been" instead of "have been".
122253
Let's take the Golden Globes for example. Which of these is correct?     The Golden Globes are getting a lot of attention.   vs.     The Golden Globes is getting a lot of attention.   As a single event, my brain tells me it's the latter. The former sounds so much better though. Which is it?
120884
When should I say "She is gone", and when should I say "She has gone" (and why)?  I think that when I mean "She went away and she's still there", it should be "She has gone". Are there exceptions where it should be "She is gone" ?
290
I was reading BBC culture page ( See  ). In the middle of the text, we see:  He became firm friends with the Shakespeare and Company owner in a relationship that lasted until his death 40 years later.  Q1: Does the writer make a mistake? Q2: Why has the writer used the plural form of &quot;friend&quot;?
18629
I've been reading . I have also been reading this . From these two sources it appears that there is no difference between Present-perfect-tense and Simple-past-tense.     I myself thought up two sentences:           The children played in the sandbox.      The children have played in the sandbox.        The only difference that I am able to recognize is that in the 2nd sentence we are putting some emphasis on the fact that children (have) finished the play. If I translate "have" into my language then it is giving the emphasis that children finished the job. On the other hand the 1st sentence is just telling that children played there some time ago. The 1st sentence is giving no emphasis on the fact that they have finished the play.     Please explain me what is the difference between Present-perfect-tense and Simple-past-tense.
58378
In a question like this one, for example,      Who have/has come?    Is the word "who" singular or plural? Or is it both plural and singular?   I have heard it’s plural. Please correct me if I am wrong.
25147
I remember (vaguely) reading somewhere that it is wrong to use the present perfect when the subject of a sentence is someone who is long dead:     *Einstein has visited the Philippines.   My question is, What if the dead person is not the subject but an object:     Leo is the best president our country has/had ever had. (The ones who   succeeded him were inferior, even our current president.)   Which tense is proper here
83481
I have noticed a lot of people use of instead of have, for example: "that must of been really annoying".  Is this correct?
7612
Possible Duplicate:          Frequently when reading tech articles, I see sentences like "Microsoft have released ..." or "Apple have announced ...". This seems wrong to me because the nouns are singular; Microsoft and Apple are individual companies, even though they refer to groups of people. I have not seen this usage outside of tech journalism, but it's pervasive enough that it makes me wonder: is this actually the correct usage?  As a follow-up question, is it correct to use a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent like this? For example, "Apple has announced they are changing their name to Orange" or "Apple has announced it is changing its name to Orange". The second form seems technically correct but sounds awkward.
87854
I am a bit confused with this sentence.   The team was/were now in the field and about to take their/its place.  Since we are referring to taking positions on the field and as all the players take different positions, I thought we have to use the team as a plural here as the emphasis is on individual units. But my book says otherwise.  Is The team were now in the field and about to take their place, correct? Please clarify.
112217
Where did they go?   Where do they went?   Can you please advise which of above forms is correct?  I'm pretty sure that first one is fine but wondering about second one.   Can I use a second form as well or it's incorrect?
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.
89189
I was wondering if there was a sentence that contains a country name (or generally a proper noun) that has a plural word in it - e.g., the United States or The United Emirates - how do we treat it? (Sorry if I sound non-technical, as I'm not exactly very good at language).     The United States of America have done something.   OR     The United States of America has done something.   which one is appropriate? Usually, I've been using "has" for countries (treating it as one entity).
74070
Context: I am writing a short text to explain the main differences between Spanish passive sentences with "ser" and "estar", one of which is verb choice: sometimes the adjectival form should be chosen, and sometimes the participle form should. Those are generally the same, but sometimes they differ. The problematic sentence goes like:     Some examples where the participle and the adjectival form differ are: [and a list follows]   In a previous , it was explained that the noun (form) can be either in singular or plural. Because the noun was a general thing, I decided to go with the singular form, but then a verb followed (differ). Now, my question is:    Should the verb be conjugated in third person singular (differs) or plural (differ)?   Common sense tells me that it should be a plural (since there are two forms), but "differ" after "form" doesn't sound right (or does it?). I know I could just change form to forms, but I would like to keep it singular. Besides, I really am interested in knowing how the verb should be conjugated in this kind of phrases when the noun is to be kept in singular.
12698
Regarding actions taken in the past, besides the differences those two tenses have semantically, my teacher shared that it could be a British vs American English case.   When talking about past action, British prefers present perfect because they take into account that the effect from their past action still happens until now. As for American, they prefer to state the action only. It happened in the past, so past tense it is.     I have had dinner. [British]   vs.      I had dinner. [American]   I hope to hear it from the native speakers, both British and American. What do you think about this? Is it true?  If it is, I don't think it can apply to all cases of past actions. There have to be cases when both style agree to use the same tenses. Could you please help me define the situation when this kind of difference applies and when doesn't?
28783
Should you use a plural verb if you refer to a fraction?     Nine tenths of the pillar have rotted away.   I think has should be used here, but I'm not sure.
3246
Could you explain me please, why sometimes the word "mile" is used in singular, sometimes in plural, while in both cases it refers to several and not 1 mile.  Example:     They took part in a 26 mile long swimming race.   After 12 miles he got tired.   Thanks in advance to those who can enlighten me!
58044
Both are in the present perfect, but one uses the verb 'to go' and the other 'to be'. Is there a rule for this?  Is there any chance that the differences between "I have been" vs. "I have gone", are differences in English dialect (I don't know if this is the right word).  Edit Could I say that North American English speakers use "I have gone", and maybe U.K speakers say "I've been"? Or vice versa.