Uh-uh. Non-standard.

This is a team that couldn't lose, even if they were one man short. This is a team that can't lose, even if they are one man short. Do these sentences also follow the "same tense"-principle suggested by califjim? (I.e, is the first

FX can indeed be short for effects, just as you guessed. It's probably mostly used in marketing language/informal language though.

The difference between "I saw it" and "I did see it" is that with the second one, you stress the fact that you actually saw it. -Come on, you can't possibly have seen it! -I did see it - no matter what you believe.

Option 2 is correct. In the US you would hear "on short notice" too.

or: Sometimes days begin with nothing to which you can look forward.

looked it up with gurunet... from the article on in: adv. To or toward the inside: opened the door and stepped in. To or toward a destination or goal: The mob closed in. Sports. So as to score, as by crossing home plate in baseball:

I agree that that no one follows that old rule about prepositions at the end of sentences. I just wonder if "in" in "further in" and "on" in "further on" are really prepositions.

2-b is very commonly used, and nobody would look at you funny if you said it, but to be proper, you need an object in that prepositional phrase. It should be "Talk to you later on today" or something similar. Are you sure about this? Would

My argument for "and" being a preposition is that people use it as one. People do say "Peter and me went home." Why should one insist that this is wrong when there are many other examples in the language of double word class membership when it