I am good. I am well. I feel good. I feel well. I am feeling well. I am feeling good. I am doing good. I am doing well.   A former English teacher told me #1 is improper English and to use #2. Is this true and why so?  I Google searched this issue and found . The author clames both I am good and I am well are proper English, though I don't follow the argument.     The nitpickers will tell you that "well" is an adverb (and therefore   modifies verbs) and that "good" is an adjective (and therefore   modifies nouns), but the situation isn't that simple.   To me this statement is empty. So what if "well" is an adverb and "good" is an adjective? What grammar rule is being contradicted if this were true?  I have heard the argument that #5 and #6 are referring to the capacity to experience the sensation of touch. What I don't understand is how #3 and #4 can't be interpreted in the same way?  Does it make a difference if the asked question is "how have you been?" versus "how are you?"?
68298
The greeting How are you? is asking How are you doing in general?  —     How are you?   I'm well. [Misunderstood the question.]   because well as an adjective which means:     in good health especially after having suffered illness or injury   This would be an answer to How are you doing physically, how is your health?  —     How are you?   I'm good.  [Misunderstood the question.]   because good as an adjective means:     having moral excellence or admirableness   This would be an answer to      How would you describe your character, superman?    I'm good.   —     How are you?   I'm doing good. [Grammatically incorrect.]   because good is an adjective, not an adverb.  —     How are you?   I'm doing well. [Correct.]   because well is an adverb describing how you are doing.     How are you?   I'm doing fine. [Correct.]   because fine is an adjective which means:     being satisfactory or in satisfactory condition     Why do so many people say one of the first three responses?
9566
I remember being taught that the correct order of adjectives in English was something along the lines of "Opinion-Size-Age-Color-Material-Purpose."  However, it's been a long time and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few categories (I think there were eight or nine). Can anyone fill them in?
92336
Over on another network site, a helpful user corrected the grammar of .  The answer now says     I believe it's valid.   where I originally wrote     I believe it valid.   Is the original sentence gramamatically (or at least idiomatically) correct or do I absolutely need a form of 'to be' here? (What's more, is 'to be' a copula or an auxiliary verb if used like this?)  I am quite certain that I have seen sentences like the original one in the past, but I am uncertain where. Given that I am frequently exposed to the somewhat made-up English of authors in the fields of sci-fi and fantasy, I might have fallen into a trap here.  Edit: I don't doubt that the correction is valid and enhances readability.
123513
A phrase I came across tonight was "Here's the good news and the bad news." Trouble is, "Here's" means "Here is", and "is" is meant for one thing, not two things. I'm describing two things. However, "Here are the good news and the bad news" sounds bizarre.  What to do?
86762
I am wondering if the explanations correct and whether what is the difference between different &quot;seems&quot;.   He seems happy. He seems a happy fellow. He seems to be a happy fellow. He seems to work hard. He seemed to be happy   &quot;Seem&quot; also enters into an 'impersonal' construction which employs 1) the 'dummy' subject it + an active tensed form with &quot;seem&quot;, followed by 2) a that clause (sometimes called a 'content' clause) which expresses the assertion which is hedged or qualified.   It seems that he is happy (but he may not be).  It seemed that he was a happy fellow (but he wasn't).  It will seem that he is working hard (but he will in fact be spending his time answering questions on ELL instead of working).  He is seemed to be something.
71399
Lately, something has struck me.  I've been hearing several expressions in English, some clearly borrowed from French and preserving their noun-adjective form.  Some examples are:  Attorney General Secretary General Court Martial Notary Public   I suspect there are more that I have missed.  However, in each of the 4 cases listed above, I feel 'OK' saying them the 'English' way; that is, adjective-noun, which is the way we almost always do things except for these borrowed phrases.  One might receive a statement from the General Attorney, or be sent to a Martial Court.  My father is actually a lawyer and does indeed describe himself as a Public Notary.  Doing things this way makes the plural sound a lot more sensible in English, too; which sounds better: General Secretaries, or Secretaries General?  How common is it for people to flip these borrowed phrases around and say them the more standard English adjective-noun way?  Might it be clearer in the long run if we did so?
90484
The situation is that someone asks me how my family are; I then want to answer that they all are fine.   I want to know whether the sentences "They all are fine." and "They are all fine." have the same meaning.  Is there any difference? To me as a non-native English speaker, "They all are fine." seems better&nbsp;— it should mean that each of my family members is fine whereas "They are all fine." should mean that each of my family members is completely fine. Please correct my understanding if there is anything wrong.
116689
It would make sense if both of these sentences were grammatically correct; but is anything different between them meaning-wise?  He acted very strange when I told him about the missing amulet. He acted strangely about the whole deal.  What difference is there between using an adverb here and using an adjective?
100730
It’s not perfectly clear to me what it is you’re trying to say.  It’s not perfectly clear to me what you’re trying to say.    Supposing (2) is grammatical, what, if any, is the difference between it and (1)? Anyway, is (2) good English?
108074
1.This product is good value. 2.This product is of good value.    Are there any difference in meaning between "good value" and "of good value"?
112343
Consider the following:        Not only you should be able to speak but also able to write.   You should be able to not only speak but also write.   You should not only be able to speak but also be able to write.      Which is right to use? If there's an even better one, please suggest.
42172
I have been told that 'you look good' is the perfect compliment to give. Because 'you are looking good' is not colloquial. How correct is it?  For example, if I have to ask others about myself:   How do I look? How am I looking? (This would be incorrect I guess)   Having said that, I've come across 'you're looking good / nice' kind of dialogues in English movies.   How to differentiate the uses of both?
22324
As a nonnative speaker of English I was always taught in school that there are verbs that cannot be used in the continuous form, i.e.  the stative verbs. However, I've seen some stative verbs used in the continuous form in American English, especially the verbs wish, feel, hope, guess, love and like. Is using these stative verbs in the continuous form wrong? If it's not, what's the difference between using them in the simple and continuous forms?
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?
12296
Her teeth gleamed white against the tanned skin of her face.   It seems ‘white’ is an adjunct modifying gleamed, while it’s not a complement for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. But I’m wondering if adjectives can make adjuncts modifying verbs. My question are two: (1) Is ‘white’ a complement or an adjunct? (2) Can adjectives make adjuncts modifying verbs? (Even if the case is not an example of this question, would you let me know?)
28326
While writing a sentence the other day, it struck me that the following phrase has an odd feel to it that I cannot explain:    Everyone will benefit by your being well cared for.   I kept wanting to use you're but I knew that wasn't right yet somehow the word your in this context feels sort-of possessive (as it should) and at the same time sort of verb-like. I can't explain it any better than that and maybe someone with better grammar chops than I have can help me understand how it fits grammatically in this context.     Another way looking at this might be: "Why does this usage of your seem to create a grammatical dissonance?"
76558
This is a follow-up to a previous question which I am still trying to understand. I think I'm making progress in my understanding, but I would appreciate feedback to help me refine my thinking.  Here is the sentence:     Good writing requires hard work.   Originally, I thought that "writing" was acting as a gerund in this phrase.  After reading through the replies to that question along with back posts related to gerunds, I've since concluded that "writing" in this sentence is a , also termed a deverbal noun.  My reasoning?  —In the sentence above "writing" is modified by "good" and is thus acting more like a noun than a verb. —It has no direct object.  Is my thinking correct here?  If not, could someone politely help me to refine it?  However, what if I had written the following?     Writing well requires hard work.     or   To write well requires hard work.   In these examples, I'm thinking that "writing" would be a different kind of verbal noun—a non-finite verb acting as a gerund or infinitive, which is one piece of a larger complement noun clause.  The last bit is muddy for me, but I will leave it at that. Thank you in advance for your patience and insight.