The subjunctive is apparently still used a bit more often in American English than it is in British English. The most likely time you will see it used is after certain verbs in a that-clause -- though the word "that" is sometimes

Hi Tim I have to agree with GG. That doesn't sound like any version of English I've ever heard. She's can mean either she is or she has (depending on the context). However, she's does not mean she was -- not in written and also not

Technically, you should not use "was" -- but you're going to hear that more and more as the subjunctive slowly disappears from American English. We could set up "The Society For the Preservation Of the Use Of the Subjunctive In

Use "is" if you think there really is a way, but you just don't know how to do it. "Is" is not contrary to fact. Use "were" if you think there really is NOT a way to do this, and you know it to be contrary to

'Behind the doors there were to be other chambers, possibly a succession of them, where we should find the coffin lying.' It is a characteristic of British English, and of American English to a lesser extent, and especially in older forms

Hi, "have" is the "prescriptively correct" one, because it actually and grammatically refers to "languages". Now, the fact is that a lot of native speakers use the singular in those kinds of structures, because they

Yankee wrote: Just to add a little more confusion to this thread, I'd like to mention that I've also heard this idiom used with 'c a me' (i.e. in a sentence with the same format as a type 2 conditional). I've just never actually heard it used

New2grammar wrote: worse comes to Which of the choices is correct for the common phrase above? Thanks in advance! Hi New2grammar, This should help you clear up any question you may have: Kenneth G. Wilson

Hi Goodman You wrote: I have been labeled and called by many descriptions, hinted being “Ignorant” is the first ... I'm not hinting that you're ignorant. I say that if a learner tells me "informal" means "wrong",

Welcome to English Forums! You could also use the word "much". (If you used the word "much",) I wouldn't notice a difference in meaning. The use of "would" almost invariably suggests a condition, whether the condition is stated