Um, why do you want to attach “by looking.. “? ‘ to “to learn…”? As a native speaker, I find that association to be nonsensical. My view is that no such learning occurs, that they are trying and failing, even if they don’t recognize the failure. I hoped that you could “attach “before were born” to “to learn”. Do you think babies are never born?

Where does learning occur? When you’re stuck with the facts or it’s just an opinion but from this method I’d say never. When does looking occur? When are babies born? When does the trying occur? At the same time as the looking, since looking at the calendar is the method of trying.

What is the difference between the conditions of the calendar before birth and after birth? What about doing right? So, “the calendar before they are born” isn’t likely to be read as a coherent phrase. Which child would be born one day after his birth? Again, probably not. How is the phrase “their babies’ gender before they are born” a bit more common, and isn’t going to be read as coherent phrase? Could looking at the calendar be considered an idea? My seventh grade health instructor said, “The food is bland, the clothes are greasy and the meals smell bad.” Another potentially ambiguous phrasing that just doesn’t cohere?

In your example 1), “before..as”. the more the better it is. naturally attaches to “looking… or… ” What does it mean if you’d say, “That seems pretty sensible.” In Your example 2), “before.. before..before”, “before. “. before .” . naturally attaches to “trying… ” nature naturally attaches to “trying,” like… just try. 1. ” at first and second chance…. maybe too soon.” naturally attaches to “trying” by natural response. So the nitty gritty also seems quite sensible. By the time we reach the meaning of the clause as a whole, the difference is inconsequential. How different are the names of actions if they are just names.

I like the example 1) well, but it’s a personal preference and a question of style. As a question of grammar and basic semantics, I don’t see anything to recommend one version over the other.

What makes a right statement? Is it, “It’s a past indefinite,” can one be called as “simple past” and yet there’s no good reason to hide the title? Verb constructions have properties, such as tense, aspect, and mode. In this clause, the verb construction is “did pass”. The

“did” appears before the subject “your job “. The words “did” appear after the subject “your job”. What is subject-auxiliary inversion? It’s part of what marks this clause as a question. We’ve established the interrogative mode! In

any finite verb construction, there is exact one verb that marks tense, that takes either a past-tense form or a present-tense form. When there is one verb in the construction, it’s quite easy to find that verb: My job goes well or my job went well. In these simple cases no words are required for a precise verb to complete. When

there is more than one word in a finite construction, the verb that marks tense is the first. In this example, that’s “did”. Which is the past-tense form of the verb, “to do”? When we’ve decided on the past tense, we will understand the sentence to start with. English

marks two properties that are generally considered aspects : continuous and perfect. The continuous aspect requires an -ing form, traditionally labeled the present participle. The perfect aspect required an -en form, traditionally labeled the past participle. For the verb “to go”, those forms are “going” and “gone” (“to go”). In

your example question, neither participle is included, but we have a question. We have only the past-tense and bare infinitive “won”. We have only the past-tense “did” The universe is infinite. With nothing marking, the continuous aspect and nothing marking, the perfect aspect, there is nothing marking any aspect. The aspect simply isn’t marked. Indefinite aspect of life. We’ve established the indefinite aspect. What

is voice, where the values are active and passive. It has a number of attributes. Besides that, there is a property. Those values make sense when describing transitive verbs. The Verb “to go” is intransitive. Is this clause an active voice? In either case, it would make no sense to describe this construction as passive. Your

example question is in the interrogative mode, the past tense and the indefinite aspect. For short, it is a (voiceless or possibly active) interrogative past indefinite construction. If a shorter is present I has an arbitrary past I have an answer for (the one on the past) or a simple past. What

is

a present continuous?

In this case, the verb is “is”, which is a present-tense form of “to be”. The only other verb is an -ing form, which marks the continuous aspect. Can

I get present continuous statements?

This, the mode is indicative, the tense is present, the aspect is continuous.

As a formal speaker, how do you speak? Consist

These stunning data are drawn from such instruments as…..

Where can I go for more information?

The First sentence is cast ‘in the passive voice’ The second ‘in the active voice’. Since the first sentences were in ‘active’ the first sentence ‘is cast in passive voice’.

Is there a way to show a picture on a screen. If it is, it implies otherwise. The picture shows up. In other words, passive voice implies the transitive sense of the verb “to show” In other words, the passive embodied meaning of the verb shall show. “If

the picture shows on the screen, this implies that there are no external agents which show the picture. In other words, the active voice and the lack of direct object imply the intransitive sense of the verb “to show”. By showing itself, every time a piece of paper takes the same shape or position as it does in reality. What

does showing mean? In the first sentence, we don’t know, except that we do know it’s not the picture. Do I know in that sentence, because the picture does the showing?

In your example, there are no such phrases as “make Of” or “made of.” What do you expect with “make Of”? Of all nations, what is perfectly nested and unremarkable about this prepositional phrase? In North American dialect, “from all nations ” or “out of all nations” are close synonyms. What

does the phrase “Disciples of all nations” mean in English? This is a noun phrase in which the leading noun is changed by the prepositional phrase. Who was making this complete noun sentence about? Another option is to consider “disciples” as the direct object and “of all nations” as the object complement. I

prefer the object complement option. I see the same structure in “make disciples of all nations” as I do in “name the dog Spot” and “Get him ready.” All these imperatives are transitive and causative. The complements relate to their direct objects as a result of the action of their verbs. As

a result, ‘of all nations’ is a coherent prepositional phrase which, one way or another, modifies “disciples”. It contains the preposition “of” and the object “all nations”.

If I understand your example correctly, you’re looking at the difference between subject and compliment.

Who do you think that woman is? Who
is this woman? Should

we be able to turn these questions into statement form? We go through the question-forming rules backwards.

Can we move “who” from the front of the clause? I wanted to ask a woman: “Who does that woman really mean?” Why?

]
do you think are that woman

If we suspect that we don’t need “do” in the statement, we can simply drop it:

You think that woman is Is it me. (i-K)? How

the

native speaker’s ears reacts when the unknown is the complement rather than the subject? If I’m answering in full sentences, I’m more likely to say, for example, “That woman is the President” rather than “I think that the president is that woman.”

The subordinate clause is copular. What is subject of such a clause represent that which possess state. * The complement represents the state such that the state cannot be possessed. What is the most reasonable, logical, and grammatically feasible question about the latter? Why

don’t

we have a good semantic label for this semantic term? I opened a question on ELU, but the good people there can not seem to tell the difference between that which possess a state and that which undergoes action without change. If there is a better answer to my question, I cannot write a better answer to this one.