+0
Hi.

1. How should we interprete the following phrasal pattern that has something like "adjective + adjective and an uncountable noun"?

There is old and new wine/equipment.

Do we use the singular "is" because we could say this is this?

There is old wine/equpment and new wine/equipment.

I sometimes have difficulty distinguishing situations where we are to take the parts underlined some things that are to be considered separate or some things to be considered as a whole, adjectives modifying the noun.

2. Do you think a comma before "in which" is placed because there is the underlined part that is before it?

It shows a wish concerning a future action, in which the action will probably not be realized.

I think the above can be rewritten like this.

It shows a wish that is concerning a future action, in which the action will probably not be realized.
+0
.

1. How should we interprete the following phrasal pattern that has something like "adjective + adjective and an uncountable noun"? There is old and new wine/equipment. Do we use the singular "is" because we could say this is this? There is old wine/equpment and new wine/equipment.-- No; 'equipment' is uncountable.

2. Do you think a comma before "in which" is placed because there is the underlined part that is before it? It shows a wish concerning a future action, in which the action will probably not be realized. -- No; the comma is incorrect here and should be deleted. (But what is underlined??)

I think the above can be rewritten like this. It shows a wish that is concerning a future action, in which the action will probably not be realized.-- No; like this:
It shows a wish that concerns a future action in which the action will probably not be realized
.
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thank you. As to no. 2, would you say the follwing which is truncated (with some part in ellipsis) version of the original sentence would be correct if someone is showing how to use a particular tense by looking at some examples on the spot?

OK, John, it (this particular use of the tense here) shows a wish concerning a future action ...

Also, does this sentence convey a clear meaning? Do you think the part the underlined part puports to indicate/reference should be clear? And I think no. 2 isn't clear.

1.The house of his neghbor in which he has stayed for the past two years was/has been damaged due to a storm.

2.The house in the neghborhood in which he has staryed for the past two years was/has been damaged due to a storm.
.
OK, John, it (this particular use of the tense here) shows a wish concerning a future action ...-- OK

Also, does this sentence convey a clear meaning? Do you think the part the underlined part purports to indicate/reference should be clear? And I think no. 2 isn't clear.

1.The house of his neighbor, in which he has stayed for the past two years, was/has been damaged due to a storm.-- Yes (with commas), but better: 'His neighbor's house, in which'.

2.The house in the neighborhood in which he has stayed for the past two years was/has been damaged due to a storm.-- Now, without the commas, the reference is to the nearest noun, 'neighborhood'.
.