I've been hearing alot of sentences involving these words in the U.S.A  and i wanna know if they are grammatically correct. Another example is "AINT NOBODY GONNA BE THERE."
216622
aint is not supposed to be used. It is a double negative
130651
The usual confusion is between "Maybe or May Be?"\n\nMaybe, the compound word, is an adverb meaning "perhaps" or "possibly." \n\n\nMay be is a verb phrase meaning "might be" or "could be." \n\n\nExamples: Maybe I will go out tonight. \n\nI may be going out tonight.\n \nSo, i guess you could use might be and may be according to the sentence....if you could give the particular sentence that is confusing you, I would be glad to help.
300669
Of course it's okay to use ", and" in sentences. \n\nExamples:\n\n"Mr. Wagner, however, said he feels the legislation targets non-white populations, and a report to the affirmative action subcommittee details evidence for this suspicion."\n\n"On the way to school, the bus driver ran over a bird's nest, some soda cans, and a pair of pants."
618418
Your second example is correct. Because 'holidays' are plural, that is, there is more than one holiday, your verb must agree. 'Are' is the correct form of 'to be' for use with plurals. \n\n"When are your summer holidays?" is the correct form of this sentence, and an educated native speaker of English would use this.
375248
There's an easy way to tell- take out the other person and see if the sentence sounds correct.\n\nFor example: "Me and Johnny went to the store." is incorrect, because without 'Johnny', it becomes "Me went to the store.", which we know is wrong.  Hence the correct version is 'Johnny and I went to the store.".  (Don't ask me why you have to switch it around that way, it just sounds better than "I and Johnny went to the store.").\n\nAlternatively, in the sentence "John took Trisha and me to the mall.", using 'me' is correct because if you took 'Trisha' out, you'd get "John took me to the mall.", versus the incorrect "John took I to the mall." if you tried "John took Trisha and I to the mall.".\n\nThere's a complex rationale behind it about the subjects and objects of sentences and all that, but I find this is the best way to explain it- simple and to the point, with a way to test it.\n\nHope that helps!
74459
It's a shame the asker didn't include more of the surrounding text from this article so it could be analyzed more closely.  \n\nAnyhow, grammarians will concur that the structure:  \n\n"...active surveillance and robust peer intervention among high-risk groups such as female sex workers had had an impact in the South..." ,\n\nIS, technically, correct.  Sacramento Dweller was correct in identifying this seemingly awkward grammatical structure as a matter of tense.  Sentences utilizing this particular structure generally fall under the category of "Conditional Sentences."  Sentences featuring the 'had had' syntax are classified as "The Third Conditional," or "Conditional Type Three," and can generally be diagnosed by analyzing them for similarities with following structural formulae:\n\n(The Type 3 Conditional / Third Conditional Formula:)\n\n" IF + <insert past perfect tense verb> + <insert perfect conditional tense verb> = RESULT OF SUPPOSED CONDITIONS.*\n\n*~NOTE:  RESULT(S) of the supposed conditions usually resemble one of the following two structures, depending on when events occurred:  \n\n(1.) Result:  <insert simple present or past tense verb to express an obvious, or predictable fact / outcome>\n\n(2.) Result:  <insert modal verb  + simple present or past tense verb to express a known fact / outcome >\n\nEXAMPLE #1:  "If you had had proper training as an assassin, we would not be in this situation..."\n\nEXAMPLE #2:  "If I'd had proper training as an assassin, you probably wouldn't be here to complain."\n\n(Notice how in EXAMPLE #2, the contractions 'I'd' is used instead of saying, 'I had had' to illustrate the terms of the condition being discussed, though still allowing the reader to ascertain and understand the time-frame and sequence in which events occcurred?)\n\nRules for proper usage of the "Third Conditional / Conditional Type 3" sentence structure state that the structures are 'to be used when talking about unreal, or "hypothetical" situations occurring in the past.'  That means, the related events DID NOT 'ACTUALLY' HAPPEN in the past.  Sentences utilizing this structure are almost always phrased to reckon, "If circumstances were different, what could / would have this been like?"  \n\nThe expression of time / tense in this [third] variety of conditional sentence structure IS identified as the past, and indicates that an action was completed "in" the past.  The condition and / or result, therefore, cannot logically be fulfilled because the action in the "IF" clause never actually happened.  Action in "Third Conditional / Conditional Type 3" sentence structure is almost ALWAYS characterized by the quality of being absurd, and impossible to achieve.\n\nTense and Terminology?\n\n-Simple Present Tense:  Expresses a fact, habit/routine, or ability.\n\n-Simple Past:  Implies that the action happened before and is not happening anymore.\n\n-Past Perfect (Pluperfect) Tense:  Relates that an action or event ended prior to another action or event.\n\n-Present Perfect (Continuous) [Past-composite] Tense:  Indicates either events in recent past, or events which occurred in the past at an unknown time.\n\n-Perfect (Conditional) Tense: Relates varying degrees of certianty or uncertainty about events in recent past, or events which occurred in the past at an unknown time.\n\n-Modal Verbs:  incorporated with other verbs to illustrate the notion of possibility, impossability, necessity or other degree of probability.
248350
we use "for" with "leaving" \nand "to" with "going" or "running" \n\nleaving on (a date, a train)\nleaving for (a destination)\nleaving to (a reason)\nleaving from (a departure point)\n\n\nwhy?  beats me.  It's idiomatic. English usage rules are democratic, not logical.  What 90% of the speakers say, is correct.\n\nThe use of "for" means "with the destination of"  so you can say "headed for trouble" but not "leaving for trouble". \n\n"on" means "in physical contact with" (held by gravity, etc), as in "sitting on a chair", "stuck on the wall"  or "walking on the street"\nalso it means "about" in "speaking on the subject of farming"\nIt could mean "energized" as in "the light was on" \nIt's used with dates, ("on Friday") \n\nI hope this helps.\n\nby the way, a "proposition" is a business offer, commonly understood as an offer of money for sex unless otherwise stated.\n\nThe word you want is "preposition" for a word that comes before a phrase (pre-position)
31139
It is usually a main verb. I can't think of any cases where it would be secondary or helping.
110398
Okay, this one is more complicated than it seems.\n\nBOTH "this is she" and "this is her" have been possibilities in English for hundreds of years.  About two hundred years ago, people looked around and decided that they were going to write some grammar books to tell everyone how to speak English (even though they were already speaking English).  In those books, the rules, in large part, were intended to make English as much like Latin as possible.  Therefore, the rule in those books said that you should say "This is she" because that's the equivalent of what you would do in Latin.  (The rule goes like this: when the main verb in the sentence is a form of "to be", the pronoun in the predicate should be in nominative case.)\n\nHowever, English speakers continued doing both things despite what the grammar books said.  That's why "this is her" is even a possibility nowadays.\n\nThe upshot of all this is:\nIf you want to sound super-formal and, IMHO, a little stuffy in a way that kind of puts people off: "this is she".\nIf you want to do something that most people won't bat an eye at: "this is her".
603461
"Whenever" and "wherever" are technically prepositions, and are usually followed by something else.  It would make more sense grammatically to say "anytime and anyplace" or "all the time and everywhere."
411870
It ain't so! :) lol******* You aren't alone!\n\nIt gives me a headache trying to figure out where one sentence ends and the next begins. UGH...Don't get me wrong...I misspell an occasional word here and there but we are talking about "minor mistakes".
251418
I am assuming that you are an American, writing in American English.\n\nWhat follows is my opinion, not what I would consider grammatically correct.\n\nIf the quote was *extremely* and *obviously* British, then no. If there was any possible confusion, then yes.\n\nLet me illustrate:\n\nTony Blair, Prime Minister of England, wrote, "The defence of our great country is in disarray."  That clearly comes from a British source.\n\nHowever.\n\nSam Snodgrass wrote, "When the defence of a country is amuck, we can all find ourself dead."  In this case, I would probably add [sic], as it is not clear that it was a British speaking, AND I want to make sure that people KNOW that I didn't mistype the word!\n\nLawrence\nhttp://www.truebiblesermons.com
641066
The various proposed answeres are wrong when they suggest that 1 and 3 are incorrect. they are not common, and most people don't now use them, but they have been used in speech and in writing.\n\nEnglish verb tenses, particularly the complex ones (with the helper verbs), are numerous and often only subtly different. In this case the distinction is between a fact of reality (it can't have been <whatever> which would presumably be discovered when actually confronting the facts  and a conditional conclusion disproved. \n\nHis igorance in 1 is the fact,  and the door's locked condition is the fact in 3. For 2 and 4 some investigation suggests that it ould have been impossible that <whatever> because of something which turned up later. It turned out that he knew in 2, while something shows that contrary to expectation, some new fact shows that the door being locked is impossible. \n\nSome languages, like Navajo, include in verb tneses information about  the nature of the agent which caused the <whatever> we are observing. One tnese for a fence knocked down by a windstorm, another for the same fence, knocked down to the same condition, by a living agent (cows, maybe). Englich complex tenses tend to convey information about probabilities and expectations as well as time values and conditionality (eg, subjunctive). for those who master them, the English tense system is a supple and graceful tool.
542167
I know you're going to hate me for pointing this out, but either one is grammatically correct. There is no right or wrong here. It's simply a question of degree. To what degree has your optimism impacted you? What are you really trying to say? Your intent will determine which word you choose. Say each one out loud and go with the one that feels right for your intended message.\n\nAnd by the way -- it's "moments like these WHEN" (not where).
659804
however, not all native English speakers write or speak grammatically correct.\n\ni spot an error that could be overlooked by many in your sentence. "........., the first thing they usually mention is.."\n\nwould be better if "...........the first thing they usually mention has.."
299695
Yes, people in the UK use 'ain't'!!\n\nBut I think you'll have trouble proving that it's an American expression - cockney kids have been saying it for centuries!!
616530
1) "convinced" is incorrect, replace with "said".\n\n2) "...Poland is immune to" is incorrect, either change to "too" meaning "Poland is immune also" or finish the clause saying what it is that Poland is immune to.\n\n3) "...a currency crisis" is incorrect, just delete it from the end of the sentence.