What's the correct one of the following sentences?        Here they come.      or        Here come they.      Consider for example:        Here comes the sun.      This is the title of a famous Beatles song.  Also consider:        Here the post office is.   Here is the post office.      Number (5) seems more natural than number (4). So which is better, or more natural,  (1) or (2)&mdash; and why?
31343
It's very common to say:   &quot;Here he comes.&quot;  &quot;Here comes the man.&quot;    But what about:   &quot;Here comes he.&quot;  &quot;Here the man comes.&quot;    Is there a rule about the order of noun and verb in inversion? It will be too much if all the inversions are considered, so let us talk about adverb inversions only, such as:   &quot;Here comes the rainbow.&quot;  &quot;Off we go.&quot;  &quot;In the room is the man lying.&quot;
119036
Which pronount will be more appropriate to use in the following context?     If you neglect technique during the squate, it may cost several days weeks off because of a high possibility of injury. It/that happens pretty often.   I have asked similar question and there is a good answer to that, but I am still confused which pronoun to use in the context. With wich pronoun does the sentence sound more natural and why?
54362
Possible Duplicate:          I am always confused with the prepositions to use when indicating an event happening at a place. Should I use "at" or "in" or "on"?  For example:     We had our dinner at the McDonalds at/in the shopping centre at/on Sixth   Avenue.   The McDonalds restaurant is in the shopping centre. The shopping centre is located at Sixth Avenue. So am I right to say "the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Sixth Avenue"?  Now, what if it was a street instead of an avenue? Say for example:     We had our dinner at the McDonalds at/in the shopping centre at/on Coral Street.   Here, somehow, I find it natural to say "the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Coral Street".  How do I determine the right prepositions to use? And how would the different prepositions give different meanings to the sentence?
98599
I've been wondering, since these example numbers end with 1, isn't it natural to use the following noun in its singular form?  From what I've been seeing around on the web this does not seem to be the case. All numbers except for 1 are followed by plural nouns.  In some languages you do need to use the singular form with the numbers ending with 1.  How is it supposed to be in English?
43722
I was looking on the internet but really haven't found anything definite on this. I was writing a letter for IELTS practice and I came with this phrase:     "When I arrived to the school I really did not know what to expect.".   I'm doubtful about whether the "to" is well placed there.  I think the following option with "at" instead of "to" sounds better as in:     "When I arrived at the school I really did not know what to expect."   but I'm not sure if those two are interchangeable in this particular example.
56149
I'm not a native english speaker, so even though I'm decently proficient at it, I don't really "know the rules" sometimes, and this is one that's been confusing me for a long time.  Which one is correct in each sentence?     If the movement [was/were] to continue uncorrected, the tower would   one day topple.      If I [was/were] rich, I would buy a yacht.   NOTE: I care not only about the case of "I", but also "she", "them", "it", etc, as in the example of the tower. Would it be any different if instead of the tower, it'd be me who'd topple if uncorrected?  I'm pretty sure it's "were" in both cases. That's what they taught me, I think. I started to doubt when I saw a lot of "was", but it sounded like the typical intentional mistake used "stylistically". ("If I was a rich girl...")  Then I saw it some more and thought it came down to an American/British English difference (I was taught British, in theory, and most of what I read is American).    But that tower sentence came straight from "The Guardian"...  When do you use was and when do you use were?
84594
I have seen sentences similar to the following:  (1) See the reference above. (2) See the reference below.  And,  (3) See the above reference.  But not,  (4) See the below reference.  Are all these forms acceptable? Which is/are preferred in formal writing?
46371
This is the sentence:     He’d miss Japan once he'd arrived in/at/to Hawaii.   A native English Speaker told me that it was in. I found that strange, because I always see "arrived at" and "arrived to," but I rarely see "arrived in."
109667
I searched the Internet to find which of the following is correct:        Who are we?   Who we are?      And I found that both are used. What is the correct sentence?
30728
I was reading a paragraph about lions and I came up with a question about the definite article (the).  Let me tell you first what I know about it.     1->We use the before a singular noun (when we are sure about the noun.    And the listener and the speaker both know about it).      2->We use the before a plural noun (again when we are sure about the noun,   and we are not talking generally).   So, my question is why does the writer use the here as we are not talking about any specific lion or lions. We are talking generally.  The Paragraph:     Living in the grasslands, scrub, and open woodlands of sub-Saharan   Africa, the lion is the second largest cat in the world. It is dwarfed   slightly by the tiger, which is closely related and has a very similar   body type.    Can we re-write the paragraph something like this:     Living in grasslands, scrub, and open woodlands of sub-Saharan Africa,   lions are the second largest cat in the world. They are dwarfed   slightly by tigers, they are closely related and has a very similar   body type.
40893
For example:     There's two options here   or     There are two options here   I hear a lot of people say the first line (or something similar), but isn't that incorrect? Isn't it plural and therefore you should use "there are"?
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.
54067
I was taught at school that the following expression is not grammatically correct:  Who is there? It's me.  The correct one is:  Who is there? It's I.  Can you let me know which one is accurate?
32145
I have a problem with the use of "the" after "and" where you would basically be connecting words. For example, which of the following is better:     The table and the chairs?   The table and chairs?   Or are both okay? What is the rule, and are there exceptions to it? Or is the rule just contextual and may vary between the sentences and meanings?
93813
I'm a little confused about the following sentences. Could you please tell me which one(s) is/are correct?        The first and the second chapter are difficult.   The first and the second chapters are difficult.   The first and second chapters are difficult.   The first and second chapter are difficult.      I believe #1 &amp; #3 are correct, while #2 &amp; #4 are incorrect.  But when seeing the answers to the Quora question , I wonder why they say #2 is correct.
38057
What is the difference in the meaning of following sentences (I'm asking for detailed anlaysis of these sentences)   If it rains, I will stay at home. If it should rain, I will stay at home. If it should happen to rain, I will stay at home If it happens to rain, I will stay at home.  Can I say 'there is no difference in the meaning among 2 ,3 and 4 sentences ? There is no difference in the meaning and usage among 'should', 'happen to' or should happen to' together. Do they all mean 'by chance' ?   Again , i would like to know if the following sentences are grammatically correct or not:  1.If she should happen to read the newspaper, she would see your article.  2.If they should agree to come ,we would be delighted.  Source :perfect English grammar.com in Advanced conditionals Explained (pdf )
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.