Hello EH, I would say that the position of "not" is emphatic, in the caption: it in effect creates a mildly humorous verb ("to not-get-fat"). Best wishes, MrP

If you wish. You might add that the precise "time" of the verb is often determined by the drift and nature of the sentence, rather than the verbal form itself. MrP

For those with an interest in such things, cf. http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/295104281 MrP

It seems so to me. Cf. 1. The eggs, milk or cheese are to be purchased only from the farm shop. An "is" would sound odd to me (but perhaps not to others).

You merely need to explain that earlier indicative and subjunctive forms were superseded by the modern past tense forms. It should take 30 seconds or so. (The apparent anomaly is not unique to English, by the way. For instance, French

I think I would say: 1. You should take care of the correcting, scolding or punishing that is called for at the time 2. You should take care of the correcting, scolding or punishments that are called for at the time 3. You should take

Since your English is excellent Prescriptivistically perfect, I would say...

The s can be omitted in names where an additional s might cause difficulties in pronunciation, e.g. Nicholas' , or in classical names, e.g. Mars' . In your example, while "Paris" is a classical name, it is not used in a classical context,

Hello FB24, "To go in search of" and "to look for" are roughly equivalent, e.g. 1. I looked for a small grammarian. 2. I went in search of a small grammarian. Best wishes, MrP

So, would you say that the speakers who now use it as a noun are/were aware of that one "ancient", yet extant , item? Consider how many words in your question are "ancient yet extant", Anon. MrP