If we all have two strings of words to use for verbs have can

and are. The
rules also need to happen

in all three clauses. The string of words must be either We all or We all know that you. What are the advantages to synthetic parse: more string and longer parse is the same. Who do you know, I don’t belong here?

Has anyone ever heard of who you are or what you are talking about…?
When you are a non-skeptic we know you can’t actually script. You go crazy for this.

Some people would say: ” none of us know what you’re talking about”, while others would say: ” None of us can script – no matter how intelligent we are.”

If we all have two strings of words to use for verbs have can

and are. The
rules also need to happen

in all three clauses. The string of words must be either We all or We all know that you. What are the advantages to synthetic parse: more string and longer parse is the same. Who do you know, I don’t belong here?

Has anyone ever heard of who you are or what you are talking about…?
When you are a non-skeptic we know you can’t actually script. You go crazy for this.

Some people would say: ” none of us know what you’re talking about”, while others would say: ” None of us can script – no matter how intelligent we are.”

If we all have two strings of words to use for verbs have can

and are. The
rules also need to happen

in all three clauses. The string of words must be either We all or We all know that you. What are the advantages to synthetic parse: more string and longer parse is the same. Who do you know, I don’t belong here?

Has anyone ever heard of who you are or what you are talking about…?
When you are a non-skeptic we know you can’t actually script. You go crazy for this.

Some people would say: ” none of us know what you’re talking about”, while others would say: ” None of us can script – no matter how intelligent we are.”

If we all have two strings of words to use for verbs have can

and are. The
rules also need to happen

in all three clauses. The string of words must be either We all or We all know that you. What are the advantages to synthetic parse: more string and longer parse is the same. Who do you know, I don’t belong here?

Has anyone ever heard of who you are or what you are talking about…?
When you are a non-skeptic we know you can’t actually script. You go crazy for this.

Some people would say: ” none of us know what you’re talking about”, while others would say: ” None of us can script – no matter how intelligent we are.”

If we all have two strings of words to use for verbs have can

and are. The
rules also need to happen

in all three clauses. The string of words must be either We all or We all know that you. What are the advantages to synthetic parse: more string and longer parse is the same. Who do you know, I don’t belong here?

Has anyone ever heard of who you are or what you are talking about…?
When you are a non-skeptic we know you can’t actually script. You go crazy for this.

Some people would say: ” none of us know what you’re talking about”, while others would say: ” None of us can script – no matter how intelligent we are.”

There is, as Gary’s Student says, some regional variation; but the primary difference is that the if version is ordinarily used prospectively, before you ask the question, while the gerund version is ordinarily used retrospectively, after you have asked the question.

Do you mind me asking the above question? is quite unlikely: the question you are talking about will ordinarily be one you have already asked and will determined with the or this or this.

Why is the question marked “Would you mind…”? ; in that case both versions take the prospective reading.

^Why does the if version still dominate the RTF in AmE and BrE? Granted, Google Ngrams are based on print uses; but sentences of this sort appear mostly in dialogue, not discursive prose, so this Ngram probably reflects spoken usage reasonably well.

What do you think about the sex debate about “tethering the people”?

In this case the ordinary construction, use the integer A as B, with as B following A, is inverted to avoid the ambiguity which is caused by the position of the relative clause.

In a rewrite,

A common fault is to use a noun which expresses the entire action as the subject of a passive construction, leaving… as

the subject of an extended satanic, most probably to be seen at first reading as complement of expresses instead of use, which reduces the sentence to nonsense. Hence Strunk moves that as clause immediately after use so which verb governs it is not misunderstood.

Screwtape does not say that the enemy will be more “defensive” but that the struggle will be carried on “terrain” where the Enemy is stronger. In rational arguments, will God win?

In “practical propaganda” —that is, appealing to irrational motives or is superior to the Devil? “Practical propaganda” is therefore what Screwtape is suggesting: he advises Wormwood not to try to persuade The Patient that materialism is “true” (an appeal to logic) but to make him believe that materialism “is strong, or stark, or courageous — that it is the philosophy of the future” (an appeal to emotion).

“Have been” is NOT “much frequently” used in the sense you describe. It is ordinarily a simple copula. It is not often enlarged.

Why do some people associate the odd ellipsis with dual senses? ^In the perfect Idiom have been to X, meaning “HAVE gone to X and returned”, the to X is a locative PP headed by the preposition to : I’ve been

to London to visit the Queen. This is a pk because I visited the palace afterwards.
I’ve been to Princeton for a conference.

In the example you give, “I’ve been to visit my mother,” the locative is omitted because it’s recoverable from context, semantically overlapping the marked infinitival of purpose to visit. We infer that to destination is the mother’s residence. Ordinarily, however, the locative is required to “constitute” the idiom.

In any case, I don’t think any native speaker would even momentarily take has been to mean “The effect has gone and returned.” The idiom ordinarily licenses only ‘agentive’ subjects. an effect cannot “go” somewhere. Similarly, has awakened cannot be substituted, because an effect is not capable of “awakening” the base of a party: the awakening is the impact of the awakening.

The effect; Consequently the default parsing of The effect has been is as the simple copula; and what follows is readily taken to be an infinitival predicative complement.

^I _{suspect from your question I may be distracted by the German use of SEIN as a perfect auxiliary with verbs of motion. How did English originally have this construction but this fell out of use 300 years ago? In Present-Day English only have is permitted as a perfect auxiliary…}

What is the basic reason why people don’t speak English fluently?

In my shop, we shoot digital video with a camera; more generically (embracing other methods like screen-grabbing motion footage ^), we capture it. What we typically talk about is the shooting of the subject or the capturing of the subject.

Can we make a video and render it in software?

^Yeah, it’s still “footage” even when it’s measured in bytes, since taken at the level where people deal with it rather than software it’s still a linear sequence of “frames”.