Hi Happy! It’s good to hear from you again. I will answer your questions, but I’d like to ask you to send that question to my email. The answer is going to be long and I’d prefer to write it in an email, than to write it here in the comments. Would you mind? [email protected]

​@@alexseslworld Sorry ma'am, I was not able to answer you due to stress I am experiencing in the way of language learning and definitely I will try to communicate you from there ma'am.

@@alexseslworld Did you receive any email from me ma'am?

I believe I have covered all those topics in videos that already exist. Please check out what I already have.

It happens sometimes. Feel free to watch my videos and write to me if you have any questions. My email address for English learners is: [email protected]

Hi there! I’m currently on vacation out of the country. I’ll address your questions when I get home. I should be able to get back with you by the end of the week.

OK, let's analyze each of your sentences with respect to which clause is the principal (main or independent) clause and which is the subordinate (relative or dependent) clause, as well as the nuances involved. Remember that the independent clause is the one that can stand alone as a sentence. A dependent clause cannot. (A) "Shakespeare, who was a great playwright, wrote Othello." Principal clause: "Shakespeare wrote Othello." Subordinate clause: "who was a great playwright." Nuance: This sentence emphasizes the fact that Shakespeare wrote "Othello" while providing additional information that he was a great playwright. The main focus is on the action of writing "Othello," and the greatness of Shakespeare as a playwright is supplementary. (B) "Shakespeare, who wrote Othello, was a great playwright." Principal clause: "Shakespeare was a great playwright." Subordinate clause: "who wrote Othello." (Note: this clause could be a main clause if it's a sentence on its own. It asks merely, "Who wrote Othello?", but this is not the case in your sentence.) Nuance: This sentence emphasizes Shakespeare's status as a great playwright, with the information that he wrote "Othello" adding context to his greatness. The main focus is on Shakespeare's reputation as a playwright, and the fact that he wrote "Othello" supports this statement. (C) Shakespeare was a great playwright who wrote Othello. Principal clause: "Shakespeare was a great playwright." Subordinate clause: "who wrote Othello." Nuance: This sentence combines the two pieces of information more seamlessly, suggesting that part of what makes Shakespeare a great playwright is that he wrote "Othello". The focus is equally on Shakespeare's greatness as a playwright and his authorship of "Othello," implying a direct connection between the two facts. Summary: Sentence (A) makes the writing of "Othello" the central fact, with Shakespeare's greatness as a playwright being additional information. Sentence (B) makes Shakespeare's greatness as a playwright the central fact, with his authorship of "Othello" providing additional context. Sentence (C) suggests that writing "Othello" is part of what makes Shakespeare a great playwright, integrating both pieces of information more closely. All 3 or these sentences are grammatically correct, but they differ in emphasis and nuance. Depending on what you want to emphasize, the act of writing "Othello," Shakespeare's status as a playwright, or the integration of both facts, you can choose the sentence that best conveys your intended meaning.

@@alexseslworld Respected Ma'am,I can assert that no other grammarian on this planet would ever be able to explain the subtitles and nuances as you have done; never have I seen so seasoned/experienced a grammarian as you are.

@@sanjibganguli3084 Thank you for your kind words.

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer this. I was on vacation and then I needed a lot of rest when I got home. Thanks for your patience! Here’s my answer: Both sentences are grammatically correct, but they convey slightly different nuances. A) Shakespeare, who wrote Othello, was a great playwright. Grammatical Structure: This sentence uses a non-restrictive (or non-defining) relative clause "who wrote Othello." The clause "who wrote Othello" is set off by commas, indicating that it provides additional information about Shakespeare, but it is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Nuance: The sentence suggests that the information about Shakespeare writing "Othello" is added information. The main point is that Shakespeare was a great playwright and the fact that he wrote "Othello" is an additional piece of information. It assumes that the reader already knows who Shakespeare is, and the relative clause adds extra detail. B) Shakespeare was a great playwright, who wrote Othello. Grammatical structure: This sentence also uses the non-restrictive clause "who wrote Othello." The placement of the clause at the end of the sentence after a comma indicates that it adds extra information about "a great playwright." Nuance: This sentence emphasizes Shakespeare being a great playwright first, then adds that he wrote "Othello" as a supporting detail. It might imply that among the many works Shakespeare wrote, "Othello" is being highlighted as an example to reinforce his greatness as a playwright. Summary of Differences: Sentence (A) highlights Shakespeare first, adding that he wrote "Othello" as an interesting fact. Sentence (B) emphasizes Shakespeare's status as a great playwright, with "Othello" given as an illustrative example of his work. Both sentences are correct, but (A) tens to focus more on Shakespeare as a person and (B) on his role and achievements as a playwrite. You can email me with this kind of question and I’ll send you a private response, so I don’t have to write such long responses here. [email protected]

@@alexseslworld Respected Ma'am,I find it extremely difficult to search for the right kind of words to express my deepest feelings of gratitude to you for your accommodating gesture towards me; you are not only the greatest of all grammarians across the globe but also a great human being, so full of the milk of human kindness.The way you crystallize my vague ideas into definite ones speaks volumes for the fact that you are beyond compare as a grammarian because no other grammarian has so far been able to explain the nuances between the sentences.Ma,am, in this case of examples like (A) Shakespeare, who was a great playwright, wrote Othello (B) Shakespeare, who wrote Othello, was a great playwright, what are the nuances in terms of emphasis? In the academic syllabus of class Nine standard, the question in the English language exam was -Shakespeare was a great playwright.He wrote Othello (Join the sentences with Relative Pronoun). To answer this academic question of English language exam,how do I get to understand which sentence I would use as Principal Clause and which one as Subordinate clause?

Ma,am,I have got your point, but in the following sentence"Shakespeare who was a great playwright who wrote Othello"' If i don't put 'comma' after the subject complement "a great poet", what difference would it make with the sentence "Shakespeare was a great playwright, who wrote Othello" ?

@@sanjibganguli3084 There are a couple of problems with your question. First, “Shakespeare who was a great playwright who wrote Othello” isn’t a sentence. This group of phrases would work as the subject of a sentence, but you haven’t given me a predicate. This is because or your use of the relative pronoun, “who”. Also, I believe you meant to write “a great playwright” where you wrote “a great poet.” So, I’ll just say this: In order to explain who Shakespeare was, you would need to set off the clause “who was a great playwright”. Without the comma, this sentence suggests that "who was a great playwright" is an essential clause that defines which Shakespeare you are talking about. It implies that there could be other Shakespeares, and you're specifically referring to the one who was a great playwright. The second "who wrote Othello" also acts as an essential clause providing additional defining information about this particular Shakespeare. With a comma after “playwright,” this sentence suggests that "who wrote Othello" is a non-essential (or non-restrictive) clause, providing additional information about Shakespeare. The comma indicates that "who wrote Othello" is not necessary to identify Shakespeare; it’s extra information. The sentence assumes the reader already knows who Shakespeare is and adds that he wrote Othello as supplementary information.

Hi Happy! It’s nice to hear from you! I’m doing well and I hope you are too! Thanks for commenting!

@@alexseslworld Ya I am doing well ma'am and thank-you for your kind words as it makes my day. Whenever I feel sad I come to talk to you.

@@HappyBaseballEquipment-mz4ct Awwww, that’s so nice, Happy! I hope you’re not sad often!

@@alexseslworld Yes ma'am I don't feel sad after talking to you.

You’re welcome!

Thanks so much! I appreciate your comment!

Thanks for commenting! I’ve just finished recording the video. If all goes well, it will be up at midnight tonight. Check back tomorrow.

You’re welcome! I’m glad it was helpful.

You’re very welcome! I hope they’re helpful for you. (By the way, it should be “clear videos”, not “clearly”. That’s an adverb and you need an adjective.)

Hi Kader, I’m well, thanks! I can see why you’re confused. (Take care of that brain! Cracking it will hurt!) First of all, that first sentence is hard to understand. It’s not written very well and that can cause confusion. Let’s take it apart. 1) “if his knees are as bad as his doctor eludes. . . “ In this context, “eludes” must be a typo. I think what the writer wants to say is “If his knees are as bad as his doctor alludes . . . “ “Alludes” means to suggest or indirectly hint at something. So, it’s saying that if John’s knees are as ad as his doctor suggests or hits at. 2) “Time is probably ticking because he wouldn’t want to outstay the position that he has put the franchise in. . .” “Outstay” means to stay longer than is expected, welcomed, or acceptable. In this context, it suggests that John wouldn’t want to remain in his current position for too long if his health is deteriorating because he doesn’t want to overstay his welcome or usefulness to the franchise. 3) “With his respect, he’ll look for somebody to take on the mantle and lead the team.” I think “with his respect” likely means “with respect to him” or “considering his respect for the franchise.” It’s indicating that due to John’s respect for the franchise, he will seek someone to take over his responsibilities and lead the team. In summary: “elude” should be “allude,” meaning to indirectly suggest or hint. “outstay” means to stay longer than welcomed or acceptable. (In this case, to stay longer than he can and still be able to do his job with his knee problem) and “with his respect” means considering his respect for the franchise or in relation to his respect for the franchise.

@@alexseslworld Much thanks to you, ma'am for helping me out with it.. yet, what is still confusing me is the 2nd sentence, branching out into multiple interpretations in my mind.. "he wouldn't outstay the position that he has put the franchise in"... can we take 'that' in the sentence as relative pronoun, as it might indicate the relation between the position and the reality of the franchise that john slogged over years to put at? Additionally, what is 'at' representing here as in the sentence "He bites his finger at her in rage"?

First, you're welcome! And I'm glad you wrote back for further explanation. In your first sentence, be sure to always capitalize the first letter of the first word in every sentence. This is a strict rule in English (and many other languages). The only time we might not capitalize the first word of a sentence is when we're texting, which is really more like talking than writing. It's not correct. Other than that, you're right. "That" is used as a relative pronoun, as it introduces a relative clause that gives additional information about his position. You can, however, use the sentence without including the word, "that". It is grammatically correct and has the same meaning. The second sentence, "He bites his finger at her in rage." uses the preposition "at" and this is correct. But this one is tricky. I normally tell students that we use "to" to indicate movement toward something and "at" is used for a more stationary situation. It has to do with the location of something or someone. ex: "I was at the library last night." It tells you my location last night, whereas, if I say, "I went to the library last night.", I'm telling you about my journey in the direction of the library. There's movement involved. Now, having said that, in this sentence, "He bites his finger at her in rage.", the use of "at" indicates the direction of the action toward "her". Confusing, isn't it? If you changed the "at" to "to", the meaning is slightly different. "He mites his finger to her in rage." might imply that he is biting his finger as a means of communicating something to her or directing the action toward her, but it might not convey the same sense of hostility or aggression as "at" does in the original sentence. You could use "toward" and it would communicate the idea o movement toward her while using "to" instead of "at". And what does that even mean, biting one's finger toward (or at) someone in rage? It must be idiomatic, but I've never heard that one before. @@kadersabu276

Hello, TheWheelchairGuy! Thank you and you’re welcome!

You’re welcome, Happy!

@@alexseslworld Yes ma'am.

I’m so sorry! Somehow I missed this one. I’ll answer it now. You’re right on both counts. 1. Nominal relative clause: Yes, the entire structure consisting of the noun and the relative clause functions as a single unit serving as a noun in the sentence. The relative clause acts as a modifier for the noun, like adjectives or other modifiers might function. Ex: The book that he borrowed is on the table. In this sentence, "that he borrowed" is a nominal relative clause, modifying the noun "book". The whole phrase acts as the subject of the sentence. 2. Relative clause: Also, you have this one right. This is where the relative clause modifies the noun, but is somewhat distinct or separated from it within the sentence. It provides additional information about the noun, but does not directly function as part of it. Ex: The book, which he borrowed, is on the table. In this sentence, "which he borrowed" is a relative clause modifying the noun "book", but it's separated from the noun by a comma and is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. You can make a perfectly understandable sentence without the relative clause. So, that's a long way of saying you've got it right.

Thanks for the question. The answer is too long for me to write it here in the comments. If you’re in a hurry for an answer, I suggest you write to me at the email address I’ve given for my viewers. It’s all I use this email for. It’s [email protected] If you’re not in a hurry, I’m thinking about making a video to address your question. I’m not sure how long that will take. Maybe I could get it done sometime next week. Let me know what you’d like.

@@alexseslworld Just take ur time, I'll look forward for the video❤

Oh my goodness! I’m glad you wrote again. I was distracted by another person’s request for a video on Conjunctions! I forgot about your question. So, I’m setting aside the Conjunctions one and I’m getting to work on yours. Sorry about that!@@nonmomyth4338

@@alexseslworld You are very kind! I appreciate ur help a lot🙏

Thanks so much! I’m working on the video. . . I’ll let you know when I’m done.@@nonmomyth4338

Good question! This one confuses a lot of people. As a native English speaker, I learned as a child that the verb “can” means to have the ability to do something. And “could” was the past tense of “can”. This is not correct. We do use “could” to convey politeness, rather than asking if someone has the ability to do something. (“Can” does mean having the ability, but it means a lot more than that, or at least it’s used in other ways.) Could can be used in both present and past situations. For example, if I’m sitting next to you at dinner and I want to add salt to my meal, I might ask you, “Could you pass me the salt?” and that’s in the present. But I could also say, “Could you tell me what happened in class yesterday?” This is a polite way to ask what I missed. This one is in the past. I could ask both questions without using the word, “could”, but by using “could”, I’m making the sentence more gentle and polite.

Causatives are used when one person causes another to do something. The verbs used as auxiliary verbs for causative sentences are "have" and "get”. The tense of the sentence is shown in the auxiliary verb and the main verb of the sentence is usually the base form, or the infinitive without “to”. (That is to say, the infinitive of “run” is “to run”, but in a causative sentence, you’d just use “run”. Here’s a couple of examples: Present causative: She has him clean his room every day. Here, the auxiliary verb is “has” and it’s in the present tense. What she has him do is “clean”. This one looks like a present tense verb, but it’s the base form of the verb “to clean”. Past causative: He had his assistant correct his students’ papers. This one follows the format, but I want to give you one in which the base verb is not used, but the infinitive is. She got her husband to take out the trash. Here, “got” is our causative and “to take out” is the verb. It’s a phrasal verb. Got it? If not, ask for clarification. I’ll do my best to give you a clear answer.

Thank you! 😃 If you have any questions still, write to me and I’ll do my best to help you out.

You’re welcome! I’m glad it was helpful for you!

Sorry, I don’t understand your question, but the sentence you wrote is correct with the exception that you have to capitalize the first word of the sentence. You always have to capitalize the first word of any sentence in English. So, yes, it makes sense. But back to your question, a comma and a relative pronoun are not interchangeable. They serve different purposes.

Do you have a need for a particular grammar point?

Almost correct. Don’t forget to capitalize the first letter of each sentence. Other than that, yes, they’re grammatically correct. But this isn’t the way I’d say them. I’d say: 1. My hobby is playing basketball. (It’s not a big deal, but this is how I’d say it.) 2. Yes, I’d say it as you wrote it. 3. To have loyalty is to trust in someone. (Actually, loyalty is much more than this, but I’m looking at grammar, not content.)

@@alexseslworld thanks yeah I know loyalty is more than this 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thank you very much for your comment of support! Let me know if there’s any questions about this or any other grammar point. I’ll do my best to respond.

@@alexseslworld I appreciate your generous willingness to help. I currently preparing for an EFL training course/ internship in Morocco, and I will have a look at your other videos and make sure to ask for more clarification if needed. Thanks again ❤️

You’re very welcome!@@anasbenhaddou7827

Can you tell me what types of adverbs you’d like to know more about?

Relative and conjunctive adverb.

Good question and an easy one. No, you don’t have to use “but” in this sentence. It’s correct either way.

You’re welcome! I hope it’s helpful.

Good one! This sentence has some slang and idioms, so it’s normal to feel confused if English isn’t your first language. Here’s what it means: The Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) has influenced you to do too much work. You could also say the C.I.A. has made you do too much work or made you work on too many projects. Does that help? Let me know if you’re still not clear.

​@@alexseslworld yes it's clear, but can I translate this sentence in another two ways? 1) The C.I.A. has got you doing too much work. Or 2)The C.I.A has caused you to push too many pensils.😊

For sure, it's No. 1. Pushing pencils is an idiom. It really has nothing to do with pencils. It refers to doing work, which used to mean using a lot of pencils. Nowadays, we use computers more, but the idiom hasn't changed to reflect the use of computers.@@Ivan-7572

​@@alexseslworld Ok 👌 Another sentence "You have got me burning in the third degree." (A song used in the Terminator movie) I think this is not an idiom. It means you have caused me to burn in the third degree. Or You have got me to burn in the third degree. Is there any mistakes in my sentences?

First of all, you need to understand what a third degree burn is. It’s the worst kind of burn. People need skin graphs to recover from a third degree burn. So, if someone says “You have got me burning in the third degree”, it’s certainly an idiom. If someone really caused another person to receive a third degree burn, they wouldn’t say it like this. So, what does this mean? Think about other uses for Burning. You could be burning mad (very angry). You could be burning with desire. (very aroused) There are surely other ways to use “burn” that doesn’t mean literally “burning”.I hope this makes sense.@@Ivan-7572

You’re welcome! Thanks for the comment!

You’re right. Filming is modifying you and you don’t need a comma.

​@@alexseslworld Much obliged to you.👏👏 Today's last questions are 1)This way, I can eat a lot of food without anyone noticing me 2) we managed to climb the tree without anybody seeing us. I think in both of the sentences 1) noticing 2) seeing are working as a gerund. So my query is a gerund always takes the possessive form such as "your going", "John's talking" etc. So can I add apostrophe "s" to theses sentences following that structure? 1) This way, I can eat a lot of food without anyone's noticing me. 2) we managed to climb the tree Without anybody's seeing us. Are these sentences grammatically correct?🤔🤔

OK, I have an answer for you. In the future, you might want to use my email: [email protected] @@dan93431First of all, these words, "noticing" and "seeing" are not gerunds. They are present participles, verbs. Remember that gerunds act like nouns. Think about the meaning of the sentence, "This way, I can eat a lot of food without anyone noticing me." " . . . without anyone noticing me" is a dependent clause. There's a subject and a verb. "anyone" is the subject and that "anyone" is "noticing". Well not noticing, as the case may be. The point is that "noticing" is a verb. Notice that both of these follow the word, "without", which often, but not always, is followed by a present participle. As to your other question about using the possessive with gerunds, it is a common practice, but gerunds don't always use the possessive. When using a possessive with a gerund, you typically add an apostrophe and an "s" ('s) to the noun, followed by the gerund. Here are some examples: 1) Mary's cooking is very good. 2) My husband's singing always makes me happy. 3) The dog's barking woke the entire neighborhood. In each of these, the main point isn't focused on the person or animal that's doing the thing, but in the thing itself. Let me explain. In the first sentence, the point is not that Mary is very good, although she might be. But the sentence is about her cooking. This is the way to think about this grammar point. My husband might always make me happy, but in the sentence, My husband's singing always makes me happy, you can see that it's my husband's singing that makes me happy. And the same goes for the last sentence. You can say that the dog woke the neighborhood, but the sentence tells us that it's the dog's barking that woke everyone. I hope that makes sense. Let me know if any of this is unclear. And thanks for writing!

​​​​@@alexseslworld everything is crystal clear though as you mentioned all the things in detail.😊 But, I am keen on full clauses. What will be the full clause? This way, I can eat a lot of food Without anyone who is noticing me/without anyone who notices me Does it make sense?? Thanks for replying to me👍

First, let's start with a correct sentence: This way, I can eat a lot of food without anyone noticing me. That's it. That's all you need. There are two clauses in this sentence: 1) This way, I can eat a lot of food. - This is the independent clause. The subject and verb are "I" (subject) and "can eat" is the verb. 2) without anyone noticing me. - This is the dependent clause. The subject is "anyone" and the verb is "noticing". Here we have another example of a clause beginning with "without" and being followed by a present participle. @@dan93431

thanks so much!

You're welcome!

it helped me past my English test

I'm so glad! Thanks for the comment!

Thanks so much! If you have any questions or you need help with a grammar point that I haven’t covered, contact me and I’ll try to help.

Thanks so much! I hope it was helpful.

Let's see if I can parse this out. First, I have to say that "why" is the kind of question that is often not possible to answer. Who knows why? All living languages change over time. Setting that aside, let's have a look. The verb, to get, means to acquire, or to cause someone to do something, as it does in this case. But "running" isn't an object. It's a verb, and objects are nouns. When we add "ing" to a verb we get a verb in the progressive tense. We could also make gerunds this way, but that's not the case here. "She's got you running errands." or "She has got you running errands." means She has caused you to run errands." She has told you to run the errands and you're doing it. The direct object is "you". She's got you, not she's got running errands. But it's not just that she has you, she has caused you to run some errands. So, "running errands" modifies the direct object (you), showing who is running the errands - you are. Running errands is an idiom. I hope that helps.

​@@alexseslworld​​​​​ It does help😊😊. I understand right now what you meant. 1)can I use this structure "causative verb get+object+infinitive). I have got you to run errands. Is it correct too?(it means to convince someone to do something) If both are acceptable, I can translate a sentence in two ways. Such as " He got me singing a song." Means ( He caused me to sing a song) He got me to sing a song means (He convinced me to sing a song) Am I right?? Thank you very much

Yes, it's correct too. Some verbs have to be either the gerund or the infinitive. Others can be used either way and they're both correct. This is an example of the latter.@@Ivan-7572

​​​​​​​​@@alexseslworld 😊😊 👌 it means my second example- "got me singing" or "got me to sing" is correct too. Am I right? By the way I think that "ing" form is used a lot by native speakers when I watch movies. For example there is a song named "Dj got us falling in love again."=DJ caused us to fall in love again. In this case I cannot use the infinitive "To" because DJ cannot convince us. Am I right?

Actually, the song is incorrect. Dj got us falling in love again. is an incorrect sentence. It should be Dj caused us to fall in love again. In this sentence, "get" is awkward. You could say He got us to fall in love again. Yes, that way is correct. But it has to be "to fall in love". Now you're going to want to know why, right? I'll have to think about that. "Why" is always the hardest question to answer in language learning.

Good question! Actually, it could mean either thing. Only the person saying (or writing) that would know what they mean. The problem is there are many, many grammar mistakes that people don't bother to correct before sharing. I often can't tell what someone means because of the mistakes. If I had to chose the more likely interpretation, I'd say they probably left out the "of". And feel free to comment any time.

​@@alexseslworld thank you 💓💓 lovely ma'am.😘 Is it correct? "Your learder is in the helo hangar waiting for the elders." I think in this sentence I don't need a comma prior to that present participle"waiting". Because it means"your leader is in the helo hanger while he was waiting for the elders." Are these explanations 💯 correct?😊😊

Sorry, but there are a number of problems here. Is "learder" supposed to be "leader"? What is a helo hangar? Is that a helicopter hangar? If I'm correct in my interpretation, then the only problem I see with your sentence is that you need to be consistent with your verb tenses. "Your leader was in the helo hanger while he was waiting for the elders."

​@@alexseslworld Actually while writing that comment, I didn't check out what I wrote. That's why you faced a couple of problems. First and foremost I would say it would be leader. Maybe that means helicopter hanger. I took that sentence from the movie "captain Phillips" released in 2013. A pirate said "where is my captain?" An American soldier said "your leader is in........" By the way yes you are right. I should have written like this "your captain is in the helo hanger while he is waiting for the elders." At last I would say a comma should not be used. Right?? Stay happy and healthy my dear 😘

haha! I forgot your question. about a comma! Yes, no comma is needed in that sentence.

Thank you very much! I loved teaching, but we all must retire at some point. I'm just glad I can still interact with people in need of English online.

Wonderful! Just take out that last comma. It's between an adjective and the noun it's modifying. Good work!

Thanks so much! I'm glad it's helpful for you.