W ouldn't the subjunctive have been this, not that. The subjunctive would have been this, not that. In the second conditional, the main/result clause uses the 'would have' construction, implying that the result is

1) whether I am right saying this (?) (adverbial, modifying uncertain?) about is left out. uncertain about whether ... The entire whether clause is the object of the missing preposition about . The whether clause is therefore a noun clause.

I think it is so obvious that as you walk here, you are waiting because you said this. I (S) think (V) (that) it is so obvious (DO/Noun Clause) that as you walk here, you are waiting (complex noun clause in apposition

The subjunctive doesn't exist in only the present tense of if clauses. All other present tense subjunctive constructions use the subjunctive. Correct? I don't understand "present tense subjunctive constructions". If there is such

Dear friend, first and foremost, welcome to the forums! The second sentence is downright incorrect - before has scope over the entire clause, thus making it past, and cannot find has a present reference. The first sentence is acceptable in that

I remember the day that he came. We aren’t going for the simple reason that we can’t afford it. Why do you think "that" might be an adverb in those two sentences, Debpriya De? The word "that" is very often used as a relative

Greetings, Tina, Mister Micawber's answers are completely relevant, but let me make some additional remarks: 1. A time of prosperity and peace - is a noun phrase you analysed absolutely correctly. In general, noun phrases may have the

it is still not clear to me. OK. Maybe you just need a little review about "dummy it ". In many cases, as with adjectives like important, possible, and necessary , we move the subject from the beginning to the end of the sentence,

Hello, Chris, this clause would be an adjective clause , right? in fact, one should distinguish between relative clauses and adjective clauses , which are more precisely termed supplementive adjective clauses and represent only a special case of

Gleb Chebrikoff, thank you for your response. It's really informative and interesting--I agree with your analysis of "tell." 3. (d; intr., tr.) ('to inform') to — about, of (he didn't want to — about the incident; — me