What is the possibility of using participles at work in your examples? When we find the bodies by the river, we

use the third participle to get one step to the end. We found many dead people in the river.

In this sentence, the participle uses its property as verb as well as adjective to modify bodies. English generally likes adjectives to precede the nouns they modify.

The second use is a participle phrase following a noun.

We found many bodies in the river during excavations.

This is called a reduced relative clause because its structure is We

found many bodies murdered beside the river].

What is used as the expression of clause is reduced by the elision of the relative pronoun ( that or which ) and a form of verb to be. If the participle is part of the finite verb of the clause and serves to mark its tense, the participle will be marked as such. English loves its relative clauses, specifically the restrictive ones (i.e. , that define rather than provide extra information), to immediately follow what they modify.

The third possibility is called the nominative absolute, consisting of a participial phrase that describes the subject and the subject’s action together — that’s the “nominative” part of the name — and that stands apart from the syntax of the rest of the sentence — that is the “absolute” part. Is nominative absolute synonymous with n/? In this case we call the structure “dangling” In

your sentence We found many

bodies by the river murdered by z.gang. “You have not fully thought and sinned, you know that as a human being. Who would have killed many people before it, what that means too?

Your sense is that the bodies have been murdered, but the participle doesn’t follow bodies closely enough to be a reduced relative clause, and as a nominative absolute, it would describe the subject. Who should know if the bodies are found by the victims or victims?

Nominative absolute contains no more than subordinate clause. Also refer to the imputational clause for the nominative absolute. The use of descriptive, so in the sentence

Let’s escape before getting killed by thieves.

You have been shot and a lot of people have said you’ve been killed before, which makes your escape unlikely. But look out for you. This isn’t a problem for a subordinate clause:

Before we get killed by thieves, let us escape.

The nominative absolute may generally be transposed to a subordinate clause.

Having taught English for more than 5 years, I’m familiar with many teaching methods.

Since

I have taught English for more than five years, I’m familiar with many teaching methods.

What is the significance of the change of tenses you have used in your examples? Of the present and the simple past, there’s little difference between these two periods; between the present and the past perfect. In fact, as both date and time expire the present and the simple past is less than this.

What are the other issues? There are many

reasons people would say that this is the first time they have driven a van. I know that is a good test, but it’s still a great car.

Is Present Perfects the correct answer for “have driven”?

I’m not sure

what stage I should start in car, however, this is the first time I am driving a van.

is odd, because the progressive indicates ongoing action: You’ve been driving the van for at least a few minutes, you’re driving it now, and you’re likely to continue driving for a period. So it’s not the first time you’re driving a van, since you were driving a van a few minutes ago. That’s not a good experience. How do you use the future perfect today

for getting to drive a van?

What is that difference between being slain and being shot? Get serves as idiomatic auxiliary here.

Why don’t you try Google and see Google at 500K, just Google it? But “soap and water” is actually a fixed phrase: it gets around 18. How do

I tell if I have made a million hits?

What is the possibility of using participles at work in your examples? When we find the bodies by the river, we

use the third participle to get one step to the end. We found many dead people in the river.

In this sentence, the participle uses its property as verb as well as adjective to modify bodies. English generally likes adjectives to precede the nouns they modify.

The second use is a participle phrase following a noun.

We found many bodies in the river during excavations.

This is called a reduced relative clause because its structure is We

found many bodies murdered beside the river].

What is used as the expression of clause is reduced by the elision of the relative pronoun ( that or which ) and a form of verb to be. If the participle is part of the finite verb of the clause and serves to mark its tense, the participle will be marked as such. English loves its relative clauses, specifically the restrictive ones (i.e. , that define rather than provide extra information), to immediately follow what they modify.

The third possibility is called the nominative absolute, consisting of a participial phrase that describes the subject and the subject’s action together — that’s the “nominative” part of the name — and that stands apart from the syntax of the rest of the sentence — that is the “absolute” part. Is nominative absolute synonymous with n/? In this case we call the structure “dangling” In

your sentence We found many

bodies by the river murdered by z.gang. “You have not fully thought and sinned, you know that as a human being. Who would have killed many people before it, what that means too?

Your sense is that the bodies have been murdered, but the participle doesn’t follow bodies closely enough to be a reduced relative clause, and as a nominative absolute, it would describe the subject. Who should know if the bodies are found by the victims or victims?

Nominative absolute contains no more than subordinate clause. Also refer to the imputational clause for the nominative absolute. The use of descriptive, so in the sentence

Let’s escape before getting killed by thieves.

You have been shot and a lot of people have said you’ve been killed before, which makes your escape unlikely. But look out for you. This isn’t a problem for a subordinate clause:

Before we get killed by thieves, let us escape.

The nominative absolute may generally be transposed to a subordinate clause.

Having taught English for more than 5 years, I’m familiar with many teaching methods.

Since

I have taught English for more than five years, I’m familiar with many teaching methods.

What is the significance of the change of tenses you have used in your examples? Of the present and the simple past, there’s little difference between these two periods; between the present and the past perfect. In fact, as both date and time expire the present and the simple past is less than this.

What are the other issues? There are many

reasons people would say that this is the first time they have driven a van. I know that is a good test, but it’s still a great car.

Is Present Perfects the correct answer for “have driven”?

I’m not sure

what stage I should start in car, however, this is the first time I am driving a van.

is odd, because the progressive indicates ongoing action: You’ve been driving the van for at least a few minutes, you’re driving it now, and you’re likely to continue driving for a period. So it’s not the first time you’re driving a van, since you were driving a van a few minutes ago. That’s not a good experience. How do you use the future perfect today

for getting to drive a van?

What is that difference between being slain and being shot? Get serves as idiomatic auxiliary here.

Why don’t you try Google and see Google at 500K, just Google it? But “soap and water” is actually a fixed phrase: it gets around 18. How do

I tell if I have made a million hits?