Different people put the grammatical/ungrammatical line at different places when it comes to judgments about coordination with and . I find nothing unusual about not repeating will in the example sentences; the change from active to passive

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,

more google results for this form compared to the former. Shocking! CJ

If I answer the question "What did you do last night?" "I read a book.", does it mean that I finished the book? No. Not necessarily. It could mean that you read part of a book. You did some book-reading. CJ

What's in the first one is the fact that you were led to think it at all. In this statement there is the implication that what you think is not something that people would usually be led to think. What's in the second one is that you

Though I'm glad this person asked because I had totally forgotten about this thread and re-reading it was like learning it all anew. (I never knew that you could call G in the G major scale "do" in the US. I thought do was always C,

'for some jerk to...' doesn't look like a noun phrase. No, but from for to the end of the sentence is, in fact, a noun phrase. It's a for ... to ... clause, and all such clauses are noun-like. It's important for him to be here

the U.S. equivalentes to European notes do re mi fa sol la si.... Grammar Geek has already answered this. U.S. CDEFGAB = European do re mi fa sol la si (That last one is ti in English, but you guys have si there.) CJ

if you count by two's, you miss it by one. if you count by five's, you miss it by the same amount. It is greater than 20. What is the smallest number it could be? Pretty good, but you still missed a couple of capital letters. And the

Is it necessary to invert the second part of such sentences ? No. In fact, inversion is less common. CJ