Is a season ticket a season ticket?

“\”Until\” requires a point of time, or an action that can be viewed as a point: \”Until 12 o’clock\”; \”until she comes\”; \”until seeing him\”.” “Can be used with extended but definite periods, but then requires there be a specific time within that period, so \”Until this year\” implies \”Until some specific time during this year\”.” “So in our sense, having seen the show \” relates to a period of time of uncertain length, with no particular points within it, and so is incompatible with \”until\”” “Why is it associated with a specific time outside itself (in this case, before itself)? If it is related with a specific time inside itself, it would obviously be fine with after.”

I don’t think someone is confusing two words. What exactly does Mr. Robertson mean by one of their words?

In direct conditionals, “would” is non-standard, whatever the tense. How

the English equivalent of “If you went, you

would see him” is not possible in (as far as I know) any standard English though it does occur in several non-standard varieties. If you went, you would see

him. That kind of form is used in books.

Again, this has nothing to do with the indirect question/request of your example.

It is not always possible to use a preposition after several articles. Articles are not necessarily required. As is one example, when it introduces a role, or a way of regarding something. What are the other examples like President, President, or as payment, as punishment?

A participle directly following a noun phrase is usually identical unchanged in meaning if the words “Who/who is/was/are/were” are inserted between the noun phrase and the participle: this is known to grammarians as “WHIZ-deletion”. No matter whether the participle is an (active) present participle: “The man

walking along the road” = “The man who is/was walking along the road” or a

past participle: “The job

finished last Thursday” = “The job which was finished last Thursday”.

Where construction with “being” effectively forms a present continuous passive fulliciple: “The

object being returned” = “the object which is being returned.” (This differs from “the object returned] only in that it is setting the temporal focus during the return object, instead of treating the return as a point event.

The block is being labelled Likewise “The block being labeled] is different from “The block labeled]” in focussing on the on-going process of labelling it

What is the difference between example 2 and being in your example 2? What is an absolute clause? Such clauses usually have their verbs as participles, and here, the verb is “be”, in participal form. The meaning of “with the key principle being… ” is not very different from “and the key principle is… “.

How would you describe word prefix to a person. If not, how should the person look at the word with the prefix? I’m sorry I can’t understand other answers. Is there?

At the moment, there are tendencies which might seem useful (for example, in- and its variants il- and ir- are only used with words of Latin origin, a- with words of Greek origin, and un- mostly with words of Germanic origin). We know what the origin of a word is, but these rules are not

reliable.

Is “five minutes’ walking distance from the beach” an example of this? Can I use, or know of, no ‘of’? “To the public beach” as well, but “from” seems more natural to me.

On a different subject, I find the “and” strange here because the implied subject of the first half is “I” or “we” and of the second half is where we live. I do

love Lake George. After the second trip (debut, weekend, etc.) I’d write also moved to Lake George in July and it’s only five minutes’ walking distance from the beach.

I’ve

always been quite a big fan of Lake George and am happy that I moved back in last year and it’s now only 5 minutes away from the public beaches.

It means and also quite funny, but there are many examples of that might be

before and after.

If I were very young (London, in the 60’s) I find cracking my head open a common expression, which I found disturbing and I imagined horrible wounds.

When I cut my head on the corner of a desk at school, and needed stitches, I was distressed to hear the teacher tell my mom on the phone “he’s cracked his head open”, because I was concerned that she would think it was much worse than it was.

The first three are all possible, however express a different attitude to how useful the things might be.

How is all of “junk” useless,

and what is the ‘whole’ waste?

“Brica-brac” implies that it might be of value to somebody, perhaps to a collector.

Of course, these might not be meant literally: in context, we might say “junk” even if we know there is some valuable stuff there, but we just want it gone. I think “junk” is the most likely word in context. I don’t know what the word is, just a thought.

What is a mismash? Why is this word used in foreign publications? To me it’s not a description of physical objects, but of how something is organized (or not organised). How do I describe the Mishmash

of Myriad Things in English?

Why there’s no new word?

Who vs whom is one of the few relics in English of the Indo-European case system: others are he/him, me etc.

Most nouns and pronouns in most Indo-European languages distinguish between subject and object (or nominative) case – except for neuter nouns and pronouns. I can’t think of a single example of a contradiction accusative which is different from the nominative, in any Indo-European language.

So what, being neuter, although it may decline for other cases, hardly ever has a distinct object form.