There are moments reading what people say about English grammar where I wonder if I speak the same language as is described in the grammar books, and if there is some sort of secret conspiracy to foist on learners a rule which doesn't apply in

I don't know why you don't say: Victims worry about the length of a jury trial . The modern fad of using impersonal subjects and passive constructions often obscures meaning, which means that people won't read you. I imagine that's

A few points might be worth considering: 1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time. 2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there

Hello CJ, I suspect we have a BE/AE clash here. I was disappointed that you didn't give an example to show how you would express that you managed to open the door when the fire was raging. I could say: I managed to open the door I could open

You must be mad to do that. 1. I believe you are mad to do that. 2. It is necessary for you to be mad in order to do that. There's no difference. #1 I believe you are mad to do that = (I believe) If you do that, you are mad. #2 It is necessary

There's another problem with the sentence: flowers are plural; something is singular. To say 'something as ephemeral as flowers' is clumsy because of the singular/plural clash. I'd try to find a way round that. How? "I feel

I may be responsible for the I am very sorry... In BE we could easily say: I am very sorry to hear that.. I was very sorry to hear that... I'm most upset that... I was most upset that... I suspect the past tense is usually the more

In BE we couldn't say 'it hits me' in such a case; I find the impersonal construction very inappropriate. We'd say something like - I am very sorry... I was most upset...

No; 2 means that you can only do that if you are mad. 1. follows from it: the fact that you do it has caused me to believe you are mad. I was wrong; they are both epistemic and logically linked. Here's the syllogism: Only mad people do X. (2)

At Google, I experienced running a company. - sounds a little stark. I think your second example is more idiomatic: At Google, I got to experience running a company. - except that it's American. We Brits would be more likely to say 'At