Just the other day, I was talking to my mom about how the people who had been brave enough to take part in world war 2 were people we should look up to. Just the other day, I was talking to my mom about how the people who have been brave enough to take part in world war 2 were people we should look up to. Just the other day, I was talking to my mom about how the people who had been brave enough to take part in world war 2 are people we should up to.  Which one amongst the above sentences is grammatically the most accurate? I asked this question once before, I still am kinda doubtful as to whether the first one is the best one to use.
121847
Just the other day, I was talking to my mom about how the people who had been brave enough to take part in world war 2 were people we should look up to. Just the other day, I was talking to my mom about how the people who have been brave enough to take part in world war 2 were people we should look up to.  Are both the above sentences grammatically correct? What's the difference in their meaning.
74330
1.I will study hard until I get a high score on this exam. 2.I will study hard until I've gotten a high score on this exam.  I think these sentences are grammatically correct. but if I add a specific time, I think these sentences have to be only this one:  3.I will study hard until I get a high score on this exam on July 25th.  And how about these?  a. I'd like to watch all of the holocaust movies present in the world until I've become an expert on it. b. I'd like to watch all of the holocaust movies present in the world until I become an expert on it.  Since there's no a word representing a specific time, both of them are okay, right? And what I'd like to know is the difference between &quot;have gotten&quot; and &quot;get&quot;. What I know about them is we can use &quot;future perfect&quot; to refer to unspecific future event that might happen before some accident. but &quot;get&quot; refers to future event that could be either a specific scheduled event or unspecific future event. that's why if I add a specific time mentioning, I have to use &quot;get&quot;.
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?
106376
I was in a situation where I wanted to let the other person know that whatever they said was not fair to me or to the point we were discussing so I used "This is not very fair" and then realised may be I was wrong in terms of sentence usage. Please suggest which one should be used.
48462
In the movie "A Walk to remember" Jimmie's father says the following to his son-in-law who got into medical school. Actually Jimmie is dead when he says,      We are proud of you, son.  Jimmie would have been proud of you, too.   I wonder if the use of "would have been" is correct in this case. Shouldn't it simply be "would be"? I mean why past of would instead of present?
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?
17421
A friend of mine, native EN speaker, told me that the following is correct written like this:      We met on the 1st of June.   Is that really true? I cannot see any reference that these are used in written text.
96795
In 1999, I was living in Cuba.      In 1999, I lived in Cuba.   Do both sentences seem grammatically correct?   My teacher had told that the first sentence, which is with past continuous, is incorrect. I don't know whether or not the first sentence is correct. It indeed seems natural, doesn't it?
120668
I came across the following expression:     The primary task of many American troops in Baghdad has been to search for weapons and bands of pro-Hussein fighters still holding out.   This is from a newspaper called The Japan Times, which is published in Japan.  I don't understand the structure of the bold part.   Is "holding out" a gerund? If so, is "pro-Hussein fighters" its semantic subject? Then, how is this sentence different from "weapons and bands which/that pro-Hussein fighters still hold out"?
35654
Which is more appropriate in the following sentence?     "I asked him to not judge her according to (or: based on) her beauty"   vs     "I asked him not to judge her according to (or:based on) her beauty"   or maybe you wouldn't choose either of the above, but something else?
41627
All those pipelines you monitored yesterday I need their report in my office today.   Is the above sentence correct? I am concerned about "their" in the second clause, which refers back to the pipelines.
109675
I encountered this sentence when I was learning another language. I have never used such a sentence in English nor seen one, but it seems it exists.  What idea does this sentence trying to convey? What time should we relate to?
95843
Question: Is the first one redundant and proper, or is it redundant and not necessarily correct?  (1) He is a friend of Doug's. (2) He is a friend of Doug.
78917
I'm writing a poem referring to humans as landlords of this planet.  Which is correct:  "they come to test this planet landlord's heart"  or  "they come to test this planet's landlord's heart"  I would use the first one for what I consider better style. Not sure it is correct.
112217
Where did they go?   Where do they went?   Can you please advise which of above forms is correct?  I'm pretty sure that first one is fine but wondering about second one.   Can I use a second form as well or it's incorrect?
72142
Question:     A man like you should not do this, _______?   Which question tag should I use in the blank space?   should he? should you?   Which would be grammatically correct? I think 1 is true.
35589
I came across this :     Unbelievable as it may seem, many individuals that fought in the   American Revolution were still alive in 1839, the year the world was introduced to photography. (choose the error - the 'answer' is in bold)   It noted that the reason "that fought" is wrong is that 'The relative pronoun “that” may not be used to refer to people (“individuals”) and should be replaced with the relative pronoun “who.”'   I had thought that the word "that" could refer to both people and objects (while which was reserved for objects and who reserved for people). Am I wrong?