Hello, this is my first post here but I've been visiting the site for at least several months since I have found some very interesting discussions here. My question is going to be really complicated and it will take you some time to read

I don't want to be a pain in the neck but I am doing English Grammar II at the teacher training school and we are analyzing sentences. Since I am practising on my own I have come across many doubts. My doubt has to do with the verb

In my opinion the test item is faulty. I think the people who constructed this item were probably thinking like this: I know that those tanks were not German tanks. I don't know those tanks were German tanks. In other words, the tendency is

WHIZZO, the same question was already asked some days ago. For further information, see http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnalyisOfASentence/lddbh/post.htm#935373 . I have strong grounds to believe that 'being blurred...' is a nominal

Thank you, Mr. Micawber for your prompt reply. You have corrected my original sentence, which, I confess, really was not appropriate in the grammatical tense. So what if I write the sentence as: I have a question concerning English relative

I have a question concerning English relative clauses, which have long been my headache. He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend. It remains grammatically ambiguous in the second sentence, while the verb form ('have') reveals the antecedent

Dear speakers of English. I have a question concerning English relative clause which had long been my headache. Here is my sentence: He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend. My question is: which one should be the antecedent of the

I have a question about the meaning of the clause "That is all I know" in boldface in the text below (which is itself a translation from another language). My question is: Does the clause "That is all I know" refer to what is

A sentence fragment is 'A phrase or clause that is punctuated and capitalized as a sentence but does not constitute a complete grammatical sentence.' Here are some fragments: Not enough. Really? The man who is sitting in the biggest chair over

Hello, norfound– and welcome to English Forums. Since you have included no further context, all I can tell you is that the clause is quite natural. 'A voice' = 'someone'.