0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Using or
a) The harsh exercises were at the same time/in the same breath beneficial.
Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence?
b) There were presently no more problems to kill his spirit or nuisances to bother his mind.
Is it okay to use 'or' to include many things and events?
Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence?
b) There were presently no more problems to kill his spirit or nuisances to bother his mind.
Is it okay to use 'or' to include many things and events?
Top answer
Hi, a) The harsh exercises were at the same time/in the same breath beneficial. Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence? Yes.
- Hi, a) The harsh exercises were at the same time/in the same breath beneficial.
- Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence?
- Yes.
- But consider this.
- 'In the same breath', with its reference to breath, is better used in contexts where there is speaking.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
Hi,
a) The harsh exercises were at the same time/in the same breath beneficial.
Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence?
Yes.
But consider this. 'In the same breath', with its reference to breath, is better used in contexts where there is speaking.
eg He praised her and in the same breath accused her.
a) The harsh exercises were at the same time/in the same breath beneficial.
Can 'at the same time/in the same breath' be used in the middle of the sentence?
Yes.
But consider this. 'In the same breath', with its reference to breath, is better used in contexts where there is speaking.
eg He praised her and in the same breath accused her.
00
Thanks, Clive. There's another doubt I had. I posted it as a separate thread but can't find it now. I hope I can post it here so you can take a look.
Here's the example I thought of: It was only in the hardest of times that a dictatorship would sound more reasonable than democracy.
What I want to know is: must it be 'would have sounded' instead of 'would sound' because the sen
Here's the example I thought of: It was only in the hardest of times that a dictatorship would sound more reasonable than democracy.
What I want to know is: must it be 'would have sounded' instead of 'would sound' because the sen
00
Hi,
There's another doubt I had. I posted it as a separate thread but can't find it now. I hope I can post it here so you can take a look.
Here's the example I thought of: It was only in the hardest of times that a dictatorship would sound more reasonable than democracy.
What I want to know is: must it be 'would have sounded' instead of 'would sound' because the sente
There's another doubt I had. I posted it as a separate thread but can't find it now. I hope I can post it here so you can take a look.
Here's the example I thought of: It was only in the hardest of times that a dictatorship would sound more reasonable than democracy.
What I want to know is: must it be 'would have sounded' instead of 'would sound' because the sente
00
Thanks again, Clive. Does it work the same way for subjunctives like this:
Present Tense: Were it not for John, she would never succeed.
Past Tense: Were it not for John, she would never have succeeded.
Present Tense: Were it not for John, she would never succeed.
Past Tense: Were it not for John, she would never have succeeded.
00
Hi,
Does it work the same way for subjunctives like this:
Present Tense: Were it not for John, she would never succeed.
Past Tense: Were it not for John, she would never have succeeded.
OK.
Or you could say
Had it not been for John, she would never have succeeded.
Clive
Does it work the same way for subjunctives like this:
Present Tense: Were it not for John, she would never succeed.
Past Tense: Were it not for John, she would never have succeeded.
OK.
Or you could say
Had it not been for John, she would never have succeeded.
Clive
00
Thanks again, Clive. One last thing. I am assuming we don't need 'would have' or 'could have' every time it is past tense? For instance: He assumed that the manager would like him. (or) He could not enjoy the day because his friends were not with him.
In the above, we can't have 'would have liked' or 'could not have' etc. So I am assuming this is only applicab
In the above, we can't have 'would have liked' or 'could not have' etc. So I am assuming this is only applicab
00
Hi,
One last thing. I am assuming we don't need 'would have' or 'could have' every time it is past tense? For instance: He assumed that the manager would like him. (or) He could not enjoy the day because his friends were not with him.
In the above, we can't have 'would have liked' or 'could not have' etc. So I am assuming this is only applicable in
One last thing. I am assuming we don't need 'would have' or 'could have' every time it is past tense? For instance: He assumed that the manager would like him. (or) He could not enjoy the day because his friends were not with him.
In the above, we can't have 'would have liked' or 'could not have' etc. So I am assuming this is only applicable in
0
Related Questions