I'm little confused about the following real conditional sentence. The purpose of the sentence is to tell that Freedom cannot be achieved by merely chanting or dancing on the streets. Do you think any of the following are correct?  Had freedom been achieved by howling, dancing or running around the streets, then animals in the zoo would have been out of the cages long ago.  OR  If freedom were to be achieved by howling, dancing or running around the streets, then no animals would have been kept in cages.
13694
Can this:     These same officials, however, would have been appalled had they known what was going on behind this façade of self-help.   be rephrased as     These same officials, however, would have been appalled if they had known what was going on behind this façade of self-help.   ?
51684
While I'm aware of  it does not quite answer my question. I have a simple sentence:     If any of the devices was not switched off, do something.   Is there supposed to be was or were? I was thinking about was since it could be rephrased as:     If any one of the devices was not switched off, do something.   But maybe that does not make any sense at all. Also, this is for a technical documentation where more formal language is preferred, not sure if that makes any difference.
12668
For some reason, be it some bad habit or something else, I can not understand why the statement "p only if q" would translate into p implies q. For instance, I have the statement "Samir will attend the party only if Kanti will be there." The way I interpret this is, "It is true that Samir will attend the party only if it is true that Kanti will be at the party;" which, in my mind, becomes "If Kanti will be at the party, then Samir will be there."   Can someone convince me of the right way?  EDIT:  I have read them carefully, and probably have done so for over a year. I understand what sufficient conditions and necessary conditions are. I understand the conditional relationship in almost all of its forms, except the form "q only if p." What I do not understand is, why is p the necessary condition and q the sufficient condition. I am not asking, what are the sufficient and necessary conditions, rather, I am asking why.
26528
Is the following correct?     Can I get some chocolate for myself? Yes, you can but not much.   Is two bars OK?   Is there any rule to explain the sentence above?  The dialogue's taken from Grammar Textbook Round-Up Level #3.
121022
I'm reading an article about two pets rescuing their owners. After the cat managed to wake up the mother, she tried to wake up other members but they wouldn't wake up.     Cathy tried to tell her husband and son to leave the house, but they wouldn't wake up.   Why wouldn't and not didn't?   (I checked possible duplicates but they weren't convincing at all. Besides, none of the answers were confirmed. One said would is used for permission and another said it's for emphasis!)
106330
Can I write this sentence:     He said Carter had better not entangle the US in problems like those   in Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.   Like this:     He said Carter had better to not entangle the US in problems like those   in Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.   ?  If so, what's the difference between the meaning of both sentence?
100394
I instinctively translate it "as best as you can", however this makes no sense.  What is the real structure behind this phrase?  I'll include an  to illustrate the historical presence of this phrase:    Whatever the structure is, I'm guessing that it has something to do with 19th century grammar.
8746
Which wording with kill should be used here:     He committed a crime (killing/by killing) a bird.   My guess is the answer would be by killing. But I am really confused with the answer killing.   My questions relating to this sentence are:   Which one is correct and why? (or are they both correct?) If one of them is incorrect, why is it incorrect? (or, if both of them are, why?) If they are both correct, what is the difference in meaning? If they are both correct, what is the difference in their grammar?
94627
Sometimes I hear sentences that sound conditional to me, just because of the (unassertive) ordering of the words. I don't know if I can come up with a proper example. Consider this:          I'd be a lot better, had she stayed with me.        And I guess it's equivalent to this conditional form: If she had stayed with me, I would have been a lot better.  So, this is my question: In what ways can you make a sentence conditional without using conditional conjunctions (if, unless, etc)? And what are their equivalent conditional forms?
85740
I wanted to check if the phrase:      The religious vandalism will spread and will contaminate many.    is correct according to English language grammar,   or whether the correct sentence is:     The religious vandalism will spread and contaminate many.   Taken from the following Portuguese sentence, a prophecy from Our Lady:     O vandalismo religioso se espalhará e contaminará a muitos.   Should I repeat will for the second verb, or write “The religious vandalism will spread and contaminate many”?
60397
"I would have been prey for those cats had you not come, am I right?" Is this grammatically correct?   I dont understand that "had you not come" part. Is this some kind of conditional? Shouldn't there be something like "If you didnt come"?
8296
I heard this lyric in a song the other day and it just sounded so wrong that I assumed it must be incorrect grammar, but I can't find any specific prohibition that applies.     That's what it's.    That rolls off your tongue with the grace of a moose in a tutu, but I can't figure out why.  There is clearly no problem with ending other sentences with a contraction. These sound fine.     I thought I could, but I can't.   Stop touching that, it will fall off if you don't.   You say that the sky is green, but it isn't.   Also, it sounds just fine if you remove the contraction:     That's what it is.   So what's up with this construction? Should it be avoided?
20231
I was reading this today:  We look forward to following your progress.  Am I correct in thinking that it is missing a be or that -ing should be removed?  So  We look forward to be following your progress.  or  We look forward to follow your progress.  Interestingly I get the same jarring feeling when reading the examples here
88175
I've stumbled upon a sentence:     We can use it until better alternatives will have become available.   Although it sounds valid to me, I believe it conveys the same idea as      We can use it until better alternatives are available.   Am I missing something? Or is the former a more complicated way to express the latter?
73552
I saw a sentence like this:     Wilkinson is contesting the release, and threatened to sue should it be released.   I could understand it but do you know what do they call this kind of use of "should" in grammar?
54442
In the sentence "the best choice would be...", what does "would" mean in the following sentence?     Questioner: Is this sentence correct?   'Finished eating, we went to the zoo'.      Answer: I'm afraid that is not correct. The phrase 'Finished eating' is a participle phrase with a passive meaning and you need an active meaning here. The best choice would be 'Having finished eating...'.
68961
I've recently read a  from a local paper that included the following:     The pair was drinking prior to the shooting.   To me, this appears wrong and I would say that the proper way to make the statement would be:     The pair were drinking prior to the shooting.   Is the original article correct?