I know what is the meaning of this.      I know what the meaning of this is.   If the first sentence is considered correct, can someone please explain the reasoning?  Edit:  The answer of the "Changing Subject and Verb" post illustrates my question, not the answer. Another example:     To know whether you are dealing with the main clause or an embedded clause, you have to think about what is the main verb of the whole sentence.   Compared to:     To know whether you are dealing with the main clause or an embedded clause, you have to think about what the main verb of the whole sentence is.
1490
We always change subject and verb positions in whenever we want to ask a question such as "What is your name?". But when it comes to statements like the following, which form is correct?        I don't understand what are you talking about.   I don't understand what you are talking about.      Another example        Do you know what time is it?   Do you know what time it is?      Another example        Do you care how do I feel about this?   Do you care how I feel about this?
114414
Here are two sentences. 1. What are you doing in here? 2. What are you doing here?  What is the difference between the two sentences? (between No,1 and No,2 sentences)  Is there any grammar to omit preposition like above?
110495
I have asked the  in ELL Stackexchange forum. There all the answers and comments I received was really helpful, but still I was looking for something more. So I have decided to ask this same question here also.   I have seen some sentences like this -         The film was announced to be released on this coming Friday.   The film was announced to release on this coming Friday.      Both the sentences are used, and I know they are interchangeable and does bear the same meaning. But I have some doubt about the second sentence - why is it "to release", when the film cant release itself.   Some other sentences of similar structure that arises my confusion -         The product sells well.   The book reads well.   The glass broke.      The sentences are understandable, but in each of the sentences the subjects can't perform any job, as they all are inanimate object. The verbs are active, but they acts like they are used as passive.  Now my question is how to decide which verb to use this way and which not?
40190
Yesterday, I've listened to a song called "Fear not this night". I find the syntax unusual (as a foreigner, I have never encountered it). Is it the same meaning as "Don't fear this night" ? What's the slight difference between these 2 ?  Thank you for your time.
80982
Excuse me if this topic has been brought up before though I couldn't find it. It seems that there are many similar topics related to both defining and non-defining clauses but there is still one question that bothers me. I want to know about the difference between wh- pronouns (who, which, what...) vs. that in restrictive relative clause.   For example: The man that I saw at the mall looked puzzled.  The man who I saw at the mall looked puzzled.  I omitted commas intentionally, as I'm willing to talk about defining clauses only.   The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language gives quite vague description on that and I cannot think about actual examples:  "Relative clauses are so called because they are related by their form to an antecedent. They contain within their structure an anaphoric element whose interpretation is determined by the antecedent. This anaphoric element may be overt or covert. In the overt case the relative clause is marked by the presence of one of the relative words who, whom, whose, which, etc., as or within the initial constituent: clauses of this type we call wh relatives. In non-wh relatives the anaphoric element is covert, a gap; this class is then subdivided into that relatives and bare relatives depending on the presence or absence of that." Thanks in advance!   UPD: I know that it seems that in general there is no need to dig for this information but still I need this for my research.
70657
Sentence 1: I don’t know if it won't rain tomorrow.  Sentnece 2: I don’t know whether it won't rain tomorrow.  Which sentence sound natural to you? Is there a rule that we should use "if" rather than "whether" when the object clause is negative?  Thank you very much!
6761
Sometimes I can't see which clause fits the best. What "check-up" could be done to make sure which one is the right one?  For example,  1) He will do anything that is needed. or He will do anything what is needed.  2) They always ignore that is so obvious. or They always ignore what is so obvious.  3) All that I have is yours. or All what I have is yours.  My take is the correct ones are 1) that 2) that 3) what/that???  But I am not sure. I think it has to do something with different types or dependent clauses, but I don't know how to go about them in this case. Any suggestions?  Here is an interesting example  How do I know what I think, until I see what I say? VERSUS How do I know that I think, until I see what I say?  I think both are correct meaning two different things.
107258
In this first instance the main clause only stands alone if you  omit (then).  But in the other example it clearly has a main clause. So would this be classed as an embedded main clause as it only works as a independent clause if it's adjusted and or if it's joined with a dependent clause.  If I have enough money, then I will buy a new car.  If it rains, the picnic will be cancelled.  The picnic will be cancelled if it rains.
70082
Example with a context ():     However, the very fact that the West and those Russians in the know were alarmed, and that even the Kremlin apparatus seemed clumsy and unsure of what to do, stress the degree to which if anything happens to Putin the regime will be in trouble — and we do not know what would follow.   What is the subject of this sentence? To me, it looks like the very fact should be the subject. Thus, we need a singular verb to go along with it. But, as you can see, that's not the case at all. The verb is stress and it is a plural verb. On the other hand, that entire monstrosity in bold might very well be the subject, although, to me, that doesn't really sound like it can be one—it'd grammatically inconsistent to think of it as the subject. Hmm, am I missing something here? What do you think is going on?
61598
Please help me to choose the right verb.     Its inside and outside is/are the same.   If you would please explain your answer a bit.
29328
A student has written:     Still, I have already been aware of most of the information even    before watching the video.   It doesn't feel right and I would normally use a past simple here. I'm on my two hundredth script and losing my ability to reason, or to adequately explain to myself why it should be past simple (I think it's 'before' as this puts the time as completed, so he can't use the present perfect notion of unfinished time). What I need to know is:   Should it be simple past of present perfect here, or doesn't it matter?  Why/why not?   All help gratefully received.
79139
For example in a sentence like "This is the place where he was murdered", is where functioning as both a relative adverb and a relative pronoun?  Here where acts as pronoun as it refers back to its antecedent and also as relative adverb (according to Wren and Martin) but what i want to know is    Do they always work in this way? A lot of places I have seen that simply say that the word where modifies noun, a lot of grammar books say but How? Like it isn't adding something to the meaning of verb (was assaulted). Instead of telling me that this is a relative adverb I want an explanation or is it something that just needs to be classified as what renowned grammarians have classified because I haven't quite come up with any reason that proves it. One reason I could come up with was that where modifies the verb by relating a clause (this is the place) with it.
88561
I just recently read this paragraph: "Think of an ad campaign that you still remember long after viewing it. Consider a book that might have inspired you. Behind those memories are solid writing."  I would say grammatically, the subject of that bolded sentence is "writing," and "behind those memories" is a prepositional phrase modifying "writing." Therefore, the verb would be "is" not "are" since it needs to agree with the subject. (solid writing, which is singular).  But even if it were changed to "Behind those memories is solid writing," I still find the sentence awkward. I am trying to figure out how I would reword, but perhaps, I am wrong, and it is fine as is.
123343
I have some doubts about the usages of That and Who. Sometimes I read sentences such as. "You are someone I love" "You are someone WHO I love" Or "People were asked to describe the qualities they look for in a friend" "People were asked to describe the qualities THAT they look for in a friend"  Why in some of these sentences WHO or THAT are omitted and others are not. Could somebody help me with this? I'll appreciate it! Thanks a million.
115526
I came across a sentence recently:     We shall discuss this matter over a cup of tea.   Why is the preposition over used here ? I first thought that it would be with, but then, we discuss things with somebody and not something. Also, it is usually the practice that we have arguments over a certain topic, so discussion over a cup of tea doesn't sound well reasonable.  Thus, I want to know,    What is the meaning (in plain english) of this senetence, and   Why can't we use the preposition with instead (my reason might be wrong).   Thanks a lot!
55880
What is the grammatical interpretation of the phrase?  I don't understand what verb tense or voice is used.
94258
What's the subject, grammatically speaking, of these sentences?   There is my biscuit! My biscuit is there! There is one biscuit left.   I don't really know how to analyze these. The following observations seem to be relevant, though:   The verb to be doesn't take an object. In the first two sentences, there is a demonstrative pronoun. It is therefore potentially a subject, I think. I don't know what part of speech is taken by there in the third sentence. In favour of reading my biscuit and one biscuit as the subjects is that if there were more than one biscuit then, in each case, the verb would become plural (There are my biscuits! etc.) In favour of reading one biscuit as the subject of the third sentence is that if we recast it as (the slightly unidiomatic) There remains one biscuit, it seems that one biscuit would have to be the subject.   All of this leads me tentatively towards thinking that my biscuit and one biscuit are the subjects here, but I'm not totally confident about this.  One other possibility: since to be doesn't take an object, does that mean it can have two subjects? In I am he, presumably both I and he are subjects, if neither is an object?