For example     Why you say I am idiot?       Why did you say I am idiot?    Will Sentence 1 be a natural way to speak? Any grammar mistakes in Sentence 1?
121457
Which one is correct way of asking Questions ? When to ask questions without auxiliary? Is asking question without Auxiliary is more formal way of asking questions ?  a) Are you Ok?  b) You ok ?  a) Did you see that movie?  b) You saw that movie ?  a) When did you see that movie ? b) When you saw that movie ?  a) Who did give you this?  b ) Who gave you this ?
22348
It is me who am to blame.    It is I who am to blame.      Which one is correct here? I am bewildered about these two sentences.
44596
I don't think you understood me. / I think you misunderstood me.    Do these senteces mean the same thing? If not, what's the difference?  Edit: I just realized that I asked something different from what I originally wanted. So I am also interested in the following comparison:     I don't think you understand me. / I think you don't understand me.
66709
“You are” vs. “you're” — what is the difference between them?  I get confused between the two a lot. I want to understand how to use them appropriately, because I hate making mistakes.
78335
I hear and read them all the time. I mean stuff like:      You're just going to stay here?   Instead of:      Are you just going to stay here?    Then I write like this out of habit and get called out on my grammar issues by people who speak English much worse than I do. That's kinda embarrassing. So, could someone please explain to me whether it's correct or not? Are they acceptable at all, and if so, in which situations?      So, what? You're gonna kill me now?
6870
This question is inspired by comments on . The original poster wrote:     How to correct this error?   And comments say that it's an incorrect question. Better is     How do I correct this error?   I am not a native English speaker, so the fact that both versions sound natural to me is quite irrelevant. But I would like to ask anyway whether the first version is really bad.  I have seen a lot of questions starting with How to, so if you say that the first version is incorrect, could you please summarize when it is OK to use How to and when it is preferable to say How do I.
39083
I have often read people using sentences like...     Assume you are given a ball.   in place of      Assume that you are given a ball.   While both sound correct while speaking, the first sentence does not sound quite right while writing. Is it correct to use the first sentence in writing?
109721
What is the difference between these two sentences?     Why are you worried?   Why you are worried?   Which one is correct?
41767
I often hear people saying that "I am" is the shortest sentence in the English language.  I know that there are also discussions about sentences using the imperative mood such as "Go." that would be shorter, but my question is this:  Why would we (the people saying "I am" is a full sentence) not accept "I'm" as a complete sentence?  Is there some unwritten rule about contractions that says "I'm" wouldn't be correct?
108567
The first sentence of each row is direct speech. The second one is reported speech. The modals will and can change in the reported speech. But I am not sure what to do with should.  &quot;I will go to Europe.&quot; — He said he would go to Europe. &quot;I can play the guitar.&quot; — He said he could play the guitar. &quot;I should go to college.&quot; — He said he [should] go to college.
94966
I'm reading a novel in which once in a while a character says something like "I are", "He do", and similar stuff. I understand the author is just reproducing the way people talk on the streets.  However I've found a piece of text of which I'm not sure if it's proper English. One of the characters, who almost always speaks proper English, is reproducing a conversation that happened many years ago using the present tense in the following manner:     I was with this guy and "Hi", says he, "how are you", says I...   and so on.  My question is if the "says I" is proper English (a special case in which "I" is treated as a third person because we are relating in present tense something that happened in the past) or it's just kind of slang.  I was also a bit surprised by how the usual order is switched ("says he" instead of "he says") but to me it's secondary to the "says I" issue.
90024
Being an English language learner for about 30 years, I still make mistakes. In a written language, when I have misspelled and noticed it in a timely manner, I simply navigate to a wrong word and edit it.  However, in a spoken conversation, when I use a wrong word, I must stop and correct myself by saying a correct one. I've seen many ways to do that, but I'm still not sure which one to use:  He's going to school...   ...er... she's going; ...sorry, I mean, she's going; ...oops, she's going; ...I'm sorry, let me restate it from the beginning, she's going;   What is the grammatical and polite way to correct myself in a spoken conversation? Let's stick to a formal/business context if it matters.  Also, what part of a sentence should I repeat to make it clear?
54093
Which of the following are grammatical?        I cannot help but think.     I cannot but think.     I cannot help thinking.        I was taught (1) is not correct. Is it true? Or are they all correct? Is there any other way(s) to express what the speaker is trying to say using the words "help" and "think" apart from the three ways I mentioned?
70514
Reopen note:  There is a quite finite and modest amount of evidence in the literature about this issue, which members can record here as they see fit. Less than there is for example about what a noun is or what a verb is, or how to tell what the Subject of a sentence is. It's a simple question, that people need to be able to get answered on a site such as this. It is of continuing interest as more recent questions such as  attest to. The fact that people disagree about the outcome of the evidence does not mean that there is too much evidence to be documented. Quite the reverse. They disagree because there is relatively little evidence altogether. However, it is seriously interesting evidence.   The question   What part of speech is to as in:   I need to know. To err is human, to forgive divine. What am I to do?   This question is not really about the difference in meaning between the examples. It is a question about what grammatical or syntactic reasons we have to classify this item as a particular part of speech. If arguing that it is 'its own part of speech', I'd like to know what grammatical - but not historical - reasons you have for your claim.   Just to clarify, I'm not asking about what assignment any particular authority or publication gives it. I'm interested to know the reasons why. Your own personal insights are also very welcome.  If you're a grammar anorak - like me - then you may want a list of the contenders out there from other grammarians. In no particular order:   preposition subordinator non-finite auxiliary verb modal verb inflectional element   Can you help?
103168
I am not really ready to get married.   Did I put "really" in the right place? I just want my sentence to sound stronger than "I am not ready to get married."
79042
According to the answer key of a SAT preparation book I'm studying, there is an error in the sentence     By the time the bank guard closed the doors, a riot had erupted due to the long lines and shortage of tellers.   and it should be changed to     By the time the bank guard closed the doors, a riot had erupted as a result of the long lines and shortage of tellers.   I disagree with this. Why is the first sentence unacceptable?
18031
First let me state the obvious—based on my own experience—that hordes of people are confused about certain basic grammar principles. For example, I so often see mistakes in choosing the pronoun to use with direct objects, especially when introduced by and with another person, as in "Joe talked about the book with Anna and [I/me]." Another one is the near 100% usage of "lay" instead of "lie" (and "laid" instead of "lay") nowadays, even in published sci-fi books that most certainly had professional editors proofread them.  Do you see these kinds of changes as predictors of the future? Will they become correct after enough people have used them long enough?  Both of these problems drive me bonkers, and I fight my own little battle against them when possible.  I know that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They're technically history books. But grammar and style books seem less so, to me. Those seem as though they ought to be prescriptive in order to reduce the erosion of structured and meaningful language.  In this tension between "what people are doing" and "what people should be doing," are we doomed to forever bear these errors just because too many people don't know the proper way? Is it worth fighting against them? Do I capitulate to the people who are quick to accept any mass public usage as a fait accompli?  Update  I don't imagine for a second that my own writing is error free. The difference with me is that when I do learn I have something wrong in my mind, I immediately change once I clearly understand it.  I also am not imagining that language is static or ignorant that today's correctness is all too often yesterday's error. The whole point of my question here, then, is: is there value in slowing the change, and if so, how is that done and how effectively?  Another way to look at what I'm trying to ask is that in a way I am hoping to define the limits of pedantry. If being pedantic is slavish adherence to outdated rules in the face of actual and foregone changed reality, then when do we conclude that a change is a foregone conclusion?  Poking fun at my own errors to highlight supposed pedantry on my part is to miss everything I am trying to say.    Update 2  It may not be an easy question, but since language change actually does or does not happen, and every person acts with more or less intention in regards to language change, there must be an answer. What I wanted to explore is the value in efforts to teach the "proper way" vs. the opposite end of the spectrum where any new usage is not just accepted but welcome or even sought out. You know, I'm reminded of something: the conservative/liberal scale:     |------+------+------+------+------+------| radical              moderate             radical liberal                                 conservative   The funny thing about those at the ends of the spectrum is that they both want things to change. The radical liberal wants language to change to something new quickly, just for the sake of newness or evolution or some other not-necessarily-realistic ideal. Similarly, the radical conservative wants things to change just as much, but back to the way it used to be, just for the sake of sameness or continuity or some other just-as-not-necessarily-realistic ideal.  I'm not particularly asking where we should be on this scale as that's purely subjective. I'm trying to ask about something purely practical and real-world: what is actually effective? Is language change inevitable, and how fast? Are efforts to reduce its rapid morphing either effective or worthwhile in any measure? All these things considered, what position with respect to language evolution is livable, practical, and sensible?  Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary.  Update 3  Something that may be of interest to both my supporters and detractors: . I enjoyed it. I don't disagree with him, but I am not sure I am wholehearted in this lack of disagreement.