If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.

When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.

If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.

When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.

If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.

When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.

If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.

When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.

If I’m limited to a choice between them, I would go with sender’s address, though both would be understood. How do I say it in English?

All of the rest looks great except for one other point that is more of an etiquette issue than a grammar issue. I was taught that if a note addresses a person by name then it should be signed aswell. You can choose a short closing and your name or both.

Send a new Christmas card and our letter to your postal address to your recipient.
(thanks, Kitty).

(Thanks,,) Kitty…

The link refers to a comic strip with a public speaker saying each line in turn.

In the first line, “change” is a noun, and it means something new, presumably in a political sense.

Who else wants change?
Why would anyone want a change in their political action?

In the second line, “to change” is an infinitive verb, and it means to become different, or more specifically here, for a person to alter his or her own pattern of behavior.

Who is always searching for change?
Who wants to alter their own way of living? What is a good source for a dictionary?

We all want to be different, and nobody likes to adapt.