The construction provides a way of shifting responsibility away from a person onto the subject of the “have”. Those who wrote “I was singing along to the recording” (in Hindi) could well’ve easily wrote something that you could have written and sung along. But saying “the recording had me singing along to it” makes the recording responsible. Have you ever been, against your will, simply carried away?

Note that the subject of “have” is often also mentioned later in a sentence, to supply its literal role in the event.

If I have to choose between “i” and “i,” an individual can be either one, or the other, in my opinion. Which is better, the other is more “ideal” i.e no 2 (see above). or 2. or 3. or 4. Or 5. Or 6.

1. I realized that information security is becoming much more important, as technology has become an indispensable part of our lives, and it will continue to grow along with technology.” “I
2. came to realize that information security was becoming much more important, as technology had become an indispensable part of our lives and it would continue to grow along with technology. Can

I combine the “would” with the past present tense forms? The discussion a few weeks ago of a very similar example of a ” is ”’d”.” appears so as with other examples.

The construction provides a way of shifting responsibility away from a person onto the subject of the “have”. Those who wrote “I was singing along to the recording” (in Hindi) could well’ve easily wrote something that you could have written and sung along. But saying “the recording had me singing along to it” makes the recording responsible. Have you ever been, against your will, simply carried away?

Note that the subject of “have” is often also mentioned later in a sentence, to supply its literal role in the event.

The construction provides a way of shifting responsibility away from a person onto the subject of the “have”. Those who wrote “I was singing along to the recording” (in Hindi) could well’ve easily wrote something that you could have written and sung along. But saying “the recording had me singing along to it” makes the recording responsible. Have you ever been, against your will, simply carried away?

Note that the subject of “have” is often also mentioned later in a sentence, to supply its literal role in the event.

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?

Yes, it’s fine. In your example, “specifically in San Francisco” is an appositive to “in California”. Appositive says info with context without anything affecting truth. My thourday is in California, the source of information about where I live is not relevant in this case.

Why don’t we give more information about where I live?