Often “fun” is termed as an adverb, but the truth is it is noun. Is hiking is such fun?

What are the best hikes to do every day?

whereas generally when the category of the word is less controversial, such specifies nouns, not adjectives, and so specifies adjectives, not nouns:

*Hiking is such enjoyable.

*Hiking is drudgery/championship.

Will the answer be a noun or an adjective?

Often “fun” is termed as an adverb, but the truth is it is noun. Is hiking is such fun?

What are the best hikes to do every day?

whereas generally when the category of the word is less controversial, such specifies nouns, not adjectives, and so specifies adjectives, not nouns:

*Hiking is such enjoyable.

*Hiking is drudgery/championship.

Will the answer be a noun or an adjective?

Often “fun” is termed as an adverb, but the truth is it is noun. Is hiking is such fun?

What are the best hikes to do every day?

whereas generally when the category of the word is less controversial, such specifies nouns, not adjectives, and so specifies adjectives, not nouns:

*Hiking is such enjoyable.

*Hiking is drudgery/championship.

Will the answer be a noun or an adjective?

No, the pattern used among English native speakers is as you say:

If I , I would

Because of native language influence on second language speakers, you may sometimes see “would” in both parts of the sentence, but it’s not native usage

Will you follow after “If”? How pronounced is “would”? Clearly you can construct outside sentences of English, involving different structures/uses of “would”, which do contain the sequence “if I would”. When my father asked if I would be able to help him, I had to decline. What

is the traditional English subjunctive?

No, the pattern used among English native speakers is as you say:

If I , I would

Because of native language influence on second language speakers, you may sometimes see “would” in both parts of the sentence, but it’s not native usage

Will you follow after “If”? How pronounced is “would”? Clearly you can construct outside sentences of English, involving different structures/uses of “would”, which do contain the sequence “if I would”. When my father asked if I would be able to help him, I had to decline. What

is the traditional English subjunctive?

No, the pattern used among English native speakers is as you say:

If I , I would

Because of native language influence on second language speakers, you may sometimes see “would” in both parts of the sentence, but it’s not native usage

Will you follow after “If”? How pronounced is “would”? Clearly you can construct outside sentences of English, involving different structures/uses of “would”, which do contain the sequence “if I would”. When my father asked if I would be able to help him, I had to decline. What

is the traditional English subjunctive?

No, the pattern used among English native speakers is as you say:

If I , I would

Because of native language influence on second language speakers, you may sometimes see “would” in both parts of the sentence, but it’s not native usage

Will you follow after “If”? How pronounced is “would”? Clearly you can construct outside sentences of English, involving different structures/uses of “would”, which do contain the sequence “if I would”. When my father asked if I would be able to help him, I had to decline. What

is the traditional English subjunctive?

How does Old Mother Hubbard make great literature? Unfortunately in this case, I don’t think there’s terribly much evidence for these words rhyming (or at least not for a majority of speakers). This is true dictionaries from the 19th century. You can look at these with the words “bone”, “none” and “console”. If you want to be sarcastic and compassionate toward Old Mother Hubbard, then you could call it “visual rhyme”.

Is Old Mother Hubbard a master work of literature? Shock horror.

What is meant by “grammar”?

In one sense, the grammar of a language is the patterns/structures for combining words that native speakers intuitively acquire and use. What are some books that attempting to describe the grammar of various languages running to hundreds of pages but only scratch the surface? On a pronunciation question like what a native speaker says when it says ‘He didn’t finish’ vs ‘He hasn’t finished” it’s extremely complex, but whatever the pattern for deciding which is used, native speakers intuitively absorb and apply it.

Then in another sense, there is what we might call prescriptive grammar : rules that particular authors suggest “should”, be used, unless they actually are or not in practice. These are essentially invented preferences or “language etiquette”. Does some people think such grammars aren’t useful or good to read/read? So they say if they do believe in science, they rarely point to any actual evidence to back it up. A common phenomenon is that the rule is introduced to solve a supposed ambiguity, with little evidence that the ambiguity is ever a problem in practice.

Is Proper Grammar the rules of a particular author? Are there any advantages to good prescriptive grammar? Why? Does prescriptivists understand that certain dosages are so clear that drugs are not prescribed?

The construction with have (and also with make) is usually referred to as a causal construction. Then be + verb is usually referred to simply as a passive infinitive. Why it isn’t usually necessary to invent a special term for infinitives, passive or otherwise, in causal constructions?

As a side issue, it’s worth noting that if you use make, an infinitive for the infinitive is introduced by passive while not when it’s active. Why are the sentnces below marked with (*) ungrammatical?

The man was crying. *I made him cry.

*She was made cry an cry. Is he still crying? (He was made cry because his mom does not want her to cry)

I am a child and I was made to cry.

However, even in this case, there isn’t usually a special term for the infinitive: it’s just a (passive or active) infinitive.