when and why use would, rathan than,used to be,inspite of?
965067
Use 'would' when you are speculating of what you would do (not really doing it) ex:  I would go to Germany to study.  (this might be an answer to a hypothetical question 'where would you go to study?' or if you want to express your wish-- I would go to Germany to study, if I knew German).\n'rather than' is commonly used with 'would' to the same context but now you're comparing your hypothesis.\nex:  I would rather go to Germany than Italy to study.\n'used to be' has the same meaning as 'was' and 'were' (past tense of verb to be)\nex:  I used to be a student.  (Now I'm not)\n'in spite of' means without consideration to.  It follows by nouns.\nex:  I'm going to study in Germany in spite of language barrier.
674803
that was correct for that time of the society.\nit is redudant and has become a cog in the wheel now.\n\ni know in what context u r speaking :)\n \nvarun s bhatta
681529
"were" is the correct usage. It's subjunctive usage, meaning that it is imagined or wished or possible, rather than reality.
77173
Try and do are two different things.  I will do what I do in 2006.  I live in the present (and currently it is 2006).  I can review my past to learn from my mistakes without living there.  I have not need to re-live that which I have already experienced.  I can plan for some future events without dwelling on expectations.  Tomorrow never gets here.
1113342
You use "then" when you are talking about timing -- something that happens next.\n\n"You ask a question, then you get a bunch of answers."\n\nYou use "than" when you are making a comparison.\n\n"You are hoping that we know more about grammar than you do."\n\nI hope that helps.
1002978
than---"Than" is used for comparisons as in resources to realization. "Then" is time as in "I will be there by then." How about adding to your affirmations that you are willing to ask for it when you need help?
647749
The first one is correct.\n\nThe second would be correct if you changed the is to has.\n\nHTH
900657
The present tense is used for things that are either 1. regular habits or 2. always true.  For example: I wake up at 8am everyday.   The earth is round.  \n\nThe past tense is used to answer things that happened in a known or specific time.  For example: I went to the movies last week.  \n\nHowever, the question you are asking seems to be part of a poem or lyric.  Without further context, it would be impossible to ascertain who the people are or what they are doing.
779974
antecedect  & subsequent \nprior & later
688976
The best answer is spare. This is because it fits with the sentence perfectly well when u read it out. You can't give time to people neither to take it nor allow the time. Remember, time does not wait for us.
1098557
Both sentences are quite OK as they stand.  Changing the tenses - as some answerers have suggested - would also subtly change the meanings.\n\nE.g.\nElsie disagreed with the group and resigned.  (She did both these things yesterday or last week).\nElsie disagreed with the group and has resigned.  (She disagreed with them yesterday and has just resigned very recently as a result).\n\nSharon has set her cap over her eyes and (has) laid a towel over her legs to protect herself from the sun.  (The 'has' in brackets is understood - this is called ellipsis.  This sentence suggests that you are sitting next to her and telling someone - perhaps by phone - what she has just done.)\n\nSharon set ... (The change of tense suggests that she did both things yesterday or last week etc.  This is a more 'usual or bland' meaning).\n\nTo lay a towel over your legs - or any other part of your body - is perfectly grammatical (past tense = laid a towel ...) whatever anyone else says.
118479
You do not have to replace it, you just need a verb in simple present.\nEX. A HAMBURGER IS EATEN BY TOM.\n    TOM EATS A HAMBURGER.
185577
Se trouve dans/à/au/aux/en/au dessus/ en dessous/vers..\nLe temps EST (weather is) beau, froid, chaud, humide etc.\nJe n'iraiS (conditional takes an "s")pas la-bas ( je n'irai is : I will not)\n\nMerci beaucoup !:-)
1084400
The old rule used to be to never use it. And many people followed the rule, whether or not it made sense.\n\nBut with the advent of e-mail and computers more people are writing, the old rule is no longer as dictatorial, and variations are permitted.\n\nRealistically, the more formal your writing needs to be, the less you should use "but" or "and" to start a sentence. There's usually a clearer way to get your point across. I work in technical writing and shy away from it on the job as a matter of course.\n\nBut in more creative writing and/or informal writing (such as journaling or letter writing or posting things on Yahoo Answers!), I think it's perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with "but" or "and."  \n\nUsually it is used for give "flavor" to the text, to give it some life and personality. And it forces people to pause or breathe where you'd like them to, when they read your text "mentally" in their mind. You're not just relaying information, you're trying to make your reader feel certain things, and such constructions are one tool to do that. \n\nBut I suppose it's really up to you.
650451
It is "used to". If you say "I use to go for long walks", that would imply that you meant something like "I use my legs to go for long walks"
730013
Would suggests the occurrence for needing the laptop has not happened yet. What ever the project being discussed is, it is still in the planning stages. Will indicates a decision being made.\n\nBTW: poor grammar. HOWEVER should not be used to start a sentence, and is unnecessary in the above statement. Better written could be "I would always use my laptop, however; because it is more flexible and provides better functionality."
423292
In the good old honest days was was correct of course.  But then the fashions changed and because high society in London started saying were, were became accepted as correct.\nIt's still officially correct, but was is now also accepted (it's made a welcome come-back.)  It will resume it's rightful place in our time.  I already use it and what I don't know about English usage is not worth knowing.