good answer pemmican regarding the conditionals... the same can be said for the all but (sadly) extinct subjunctive in english (which is present tense, except for "were", the past subjunctive of "to be")

the second pair of sentences does indeed have a difference. a) he stopped (in order) to smoke a cigarette ... means the reason for which he stopped was to be able to smoke (maybe he cannot walk and smoke at the same time!) b) he stopped

if you are so confused when following directions, i suggest you make all of your appointments at your own home and have others come to you... provided your place is not too difficult to find!

has anyone read the poetry of e. e. cummings? capitalizing his name would be a blasphemy!

written, and spoken slowly, it does have a bit of an odd ring to it. young, inattentive speakers of english are wont to question all sorts of things... at least here in the states.

a short p.s. for woodward... serengeti is a large wild game park/preserve in east africa (where swahili is most commonly spoken)

simply put, the 2nd and 3rd "would" are both auxiliary verbs... same subject, same tense, and therefore one may be eliminated, no problem. i do agree with the suppression of the first would as well (and substitute the simple past) since the

rhetorical techniques go far beyond questioning techniques... and far beyond the scope of a simple grammar webpage. i suggest to consult the internet at large and be prepared for some very long, and often tedious explanations!

right on maj... also, no hyphen (just one single word)... same for whereas, wherever, whereupon, and of course, werewolf.

then there is the surname James. if Mr. and Mrs. James James (or Robert James, if you prefer) invited people to their home, the invited guests could say, "we are headed over to the Jameses for cocktails." (here it is a plural, not a possessive!)