Dear friend, I suppose that I have only recently embarked on the march towards reaching the level of an expert whose opinion could be taken for 'expertise'. However, being guided by the knowledge gained from a number of authoritative

Dear friend, normally, the subjunctive were follows as if/as though : He spoke as if she were dead. However, the ordinary present tense is required where the emphasis is on truth rather than falsity : It's not as if he' s dishonest (= he

Hi, Whoever wrote the question for # 1, he'd better to back to school to learn his grammar all over agian. "Must" has about the same meaning as "have to". I must go! It's getting late/ I hav eto go..

"If you knew what I had gone through, you would surely pity me." Don't listen to these people. You can change it to "have" because only the first verb has to be in the subjunctive mood. The verb "knew" is

Why should we use 'would' ,'could' in the subjunctive mood and in the future tense? would and could , along with several other verbs, are called modal verbs. The modal verbs don't really have tenses, so you can't really use

They're all conditional sentences. I wouldn't say the first one. is goes with won't , not with wouldn't . The second is often heard in casual conversation. Only the third is acceptable for formal use. CJ

I think it should be "...would have blown...". You're talking about something that is imagined which hadn't happened then.So in such cases you use would.It's actually gotten from a conditional sentence (here No.3 I think). If

1) It's will have $30 in the bank account. Will have had would imply that you're talking about the past, but it didn't happen. For example, using your bank account example "If I had saved $1 a week when I was younger, I would have

hello i've just corrected this for a friend can someone go over my corrections and tell me if the senteces are right, it only took me 5 minutes , so if someone could, it'd be nice thank you Do you know the fastest way to

Hi. Would you help me with what I think are conditional problems? 1. Is it incorrect (possibly strange?) to have the underlined conditional structure in the following context? The situation reflects just one party's talking eventhough it