This is one of those messy situations the exam writers should know better than to dump you into.

Very rigorous judges have long held that constructions of the type “X is better than Y” (substitute your own comparative for ‘better’) should be parsed as elliptical reductions of “X is better than Y is”, and therefore require y to be realized in the nominative case, if that’s distinct from the objective (which is only the case with the pronouns “he”, “she”, “we” and “they”). After those rules, one must follow the test. If you don’t follow them, then you must change your name or be admitted.

Unhappily for those rigorous judges, the rule is not, and never has been, followed in the language-as-she-is-actually-spoken. In ordinary speech virtually everybody has virtually always said “She’s better than me “, “He’s better than her”, “I’m better than him”, “We’re better than them” and “They’re better than us “. I am a linguist. The rules of English are recognized by most descriptive linguists and many people support the rule.

So there’s a fundamental disagreement between two schools of prescriptive grammarians: which “rule” should you follow?

What does this sort, sort by the time you retire? What if you were stuck in the middle?

“The rule of I/he/she/we/they” is really a bad one. You’re applying for admission to a discourse community which very largely observes it; so choke down your annoyance and follow their rules until you have enough seniority to follow your own rules.

Just wait for them to die. You’ll be fine.

What is the difference between “have you considered X?” and “What about X?”? Does someone think that might work? Would that help? ”

For me being a strong British man, I will always be able to tell if I have any problem with politics or politics. “

Gluttonous is impossible: it an adjective and can’t take the determiner a. How do you use the noun from which it is derived, glutton? If you were using the term gluttony to describe the seven deadly sins of the Bible, a doctor would never use it to a patient.

If someone is overeaten, it’s possible. Is there reason for telling something like an overeater? I speak under correction by the physicians on this site, but I think a doctor would instead address the patient’s actions:

You are eating too much?

Why is there a particular problem that can be corrected with love? I’m an old guy, and we should talk about the solutions and not the problem. You will need to focus on

sugar and starches in your diet and eat fruits. If you want to have a healthier and more balanced lifestyle. If you can’t, don’t neglect to look after your mind.

What is the importance of transparency?

The critical difference is that wish, both verb and noun, licenses infinitival complements but does not license gerund complements: ok

^I wish to go.
^I wish the sky was falling always.

He has a wish: His wish is being.

In idiomatic terms, it doesn’t translate.

From the 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who had been a diplomat, and possibly spy, in France, Spain and Italy, characterizes the Prioress in his Canterbury Tales thus: And Frenssh she spak ful faire, and fetisly

After the scole of Stratford-atte-Bowe, For Frenssh of
Parys was to hire unknowe
This was to dethrone Phyllis Thermetics,

“She spoke French quite prettily and elegantly, in the manner of the school of Stratford-at-Bow, for the French of Paris was unknown to her,” Sofware said.

From the literary side, the phrase ‘After the school of Stratford-atte-Bowe’ in literature

has become a popular phrase.

In almost all circumstances, BE has the auxiliary ‘NICE’ property you mention (negation, inversion, code, emphasis).

For one particular use in lexical verbs, where, instead of designating a more-or-less permanent state—a quality or identity—it designates temporary behavior, BE has one particular case.

In indicative sentences, BE has this sense when it is cast in the progressive construction.

Jill will be very nice tonight.
John was being a jerk.. he’s one of the usual bad boys.

Stative verbs are not ordinarily cast in the progressive. Therefore, this is a signal that BE being is recategorized as a lexical verb (specifically, an activity’ verb). This construction employs BE twice, first as an auxiliary and second as a lexical, and in most situations auxiliary piece, BE is retained and exhibit the ordinary auxiliary properties.

However, auxiliaries cannot be cast in the imperative voice. If I want to tell people how to behave, we can’t use the auxiliary + being ; we have to treat this BE as an ordinary lexical verb: be

nice!

When we cast a negative, telling someone how not to behave, it requires do support: Don’t be such

a jerk.

Does the internet really work for everyone?

In the sense that it is widely used, grammatical, and grammatical, in the manner that it is commonly used (particularly in legal and bureaucratic writing).

Element? of elements in Conjoined element should be grammatical?

My own feeling is that it is an inefficient and graceless device, which saves some minor repetitiveness at the cost of greatly decreasing intelligibility, and consequently should be avoided by writers who respect their readers.

You have parsed this correctly: in the final sentence the verb and the ‘heavy’ conjunct subject are flipped so that the ‘lighter’ predicate is first and the ‘new information’ falls in at the end of the

sentence.

Is Google an accurate source for technical questions? What sites are “Gorgie pronunciation” links?

If that doesn’t work, just guess. I would have guessed /rdi/, because because ‘g’ before ‘i’ is for historical reasons usually /d/, and I would have been wrong: it’s /rdi/. Don’t let that bother you, do it. I know the pronunciation of phrases, but nobody knows the pronunciation. I don’t have to guess. ;/ people I know are aware of my mispronunciation/speaking. I’m still developing a pronunciation. I caused great mirth when I first came to St Louis and gave all the French street names more or less French pronunciations.

The inflection with -s is used only in the simple present and only with the third person singular, not with the first person (the person speaking) or second person (the person addressed).

I / we / you and they could have / run / push / &c
he / she / it ha s/run s/ push es/&c One verb, BE, employs an inflection with

-s (was) in the simple past for both first and third person singular. but BE is quite different from all other verbs.

A few verbs, the modals can/could, may/might, must, shall/should, would/would are defective : they have no inflection with -s even in the present third person singular. They also lack participles, and the “plain” form is never used as an infinitive or imperative.