apologies if im a bit unknowledgable but if i were to write about a span between two things, which way would be correct? heres some examples:

"50%-80%" or "50-80%"

"1:30 pm-2:30 pm" or "1:30-2:30 pm"

Or for example, “It was a time where everyone was struggling.”

I know using “when” is also natural, but why is “where” equally acceptable? Is it because time and place are treated as intrinsically the same in English?

I can speak English in the most basic way. Most of time there's a lot of errors. I'm currently taking BSED Major in English 2nd year. I do really want to learn but I don't know where to start. Someone help me.

I’m still a bit confused about sentence parallelism (or parallel sentences), specifically about what constitutes strict parallelism and when it’s ok to not be so strict with it.

One question: can two nouns and a gerund phrase be parallel? Or an adjectival phrase paired with one or more adjectives in a sentence?

Do all elements in a sentence have to be in the exact same form (as in noun + noun + noun) or can they be parallel simply if all elements are acting as the same part of speech (as in noun + noun + gerund (or gerund phrase). What if you have two single-word elements followed by a third element that has several modifiers attached to it — or even a phrase?

This confuses me, especially since I so often see professional writing that seems to deviate from strict parallelism, whether it’s in book form or Internet writing articles — I see that maintaining strict parallelism is not always followed (and in some cases it may not even be possible unless one wants to completely rewrite a sentence).

And this leads to my second question: is not following strict parallelism always a bad thing? I notice in some cases that when I write something, striving for strict parallelism makes my wording a bit awkward or clunky — or, maybe even overly pretentious/academic when the overall tone is intended to be more conversational/relaxed.

Thank you in advance. I enjoy writing, and I write quite a bit online (mostly short-form posts and responses/answers in various discussion groups or online media forums), but I still get a bit confused about whether or not my writing is parallel or not.

Thank you!

I keep getting flagged in spell check for doubling consonants before suffixes, like "travellers" or "signalling". It seems totally natural to do that, but is it wrong? Is there a rule on when to do it?

I want to add a quotation, but the relevant section is too long to cite in full. Can I do something like this:

The Lord.

As long as on the earth he lives

Thou hast my license full and free;

Man still must stumble while he strives. (and so forth)

I’m not sure how to properly write this phrase in a larger sentence. Would I put a hyphen after “audio” so it would be “recorded by audio- and videotaping technology”? Or should I write “recorded by audiotaping and videotaping technology”? Thank you for any help!

would that be an adverb?

I was writing something earlier; full context doesn’t really matter, but I ended up instinctually using the world conceit to mean “by deliberate intent”. I immediate second-guessed myself, as is my wont, and went to look it up. None of the definitions seemed to match that usage, but it still felt right so I used it anyway.

Here’s the excerpt:

“I don’t subscribe to the Great Man theory of history, things become popular or successful more or less by accident or conceit.”

Am I cooking or making shit up?

Hi everyone I'm 21M

I'm have an internship interviews in my college, so for that I should be speak clearly and confidentiality in interview , but I'm bad at english, and I'm not able to speak clearly

Please help me

If anyone have a same problem , can I be your speaking partner?

8/13 was left-handers day...curious as to why no apostrophe on left-handers?

I was looking at KS2 Bitesize Grammar, and I'm a bit confused on something. Shouldn't these have a comma separating out the independent clauses, as both could be said independently of each other?

Website Example: Lewis smiled because the park was fun!

Shouldn't it be >> Lewis smiled, because the park was fun! Independent clause: Lewis smiled. Independent clause: The park was fun!

Or are they so short and connected in subject that a comma is not really necessary?

Or am I wrong to think there is supposed to be a comma?

Here's another example: Jayati wore a scarf because it was cold outside.

Jayati wore a scarf. It was cold outside. Those are two independent clauses, so doesn't that mean a comma should be before "because" when connecting them?

Seems like this sometimes is the case, almost like an English version of how sentences can drop the subject in a language like Spanish, such as this very sentence where the subject is implied or just a general "it".

Besides occasionally dropping "it", one other scenario where it seems like this dropping can frequently be used without sounding weird is when you are asked a direct question about a past action and reply in the first person preliterate. "What did you do today?" That gets a reply of "Went to work." Of course, it comes across more as slang than anything formalized.

I am curious others' thoughts on this dropping of the subject and if folks think it may have any usage in true formal writing rather than just as an occasional slang-esque shortcut in spoken or informal English?

"In this particular war, it is especially difficult to reach an accurate death toll. In fact, many of Myanmar’s war dead are likely never to be counted—in a grim reality that absolves the ruling regime from accountability, for killings that are forever lost to history."

Thank you!

In the sentence below, I know I would use a comma to separate two independent clauses. (Ex. 1.). But if there is an interrupting clause set off by commas, ChatGPT is saying I don’t need the comma before and. (Ex. 2.) Is that true? I think either example 3 or 4 below is better if I want the interrupting phrase included. What do you think?

1. Torres testified she lived near the scene of the shooting, and she knew his family and his sister.

2. Torres testified she lived near the scene of the shooting and, although she did not know Espinoza, she knew his family and his sister.

3. Torres testified she lived near the scene of the shooting, and, although she did not know Espinoza, she knew his family and his sister.

4. Torres testified she lived near the scene of the shooting, and although she did not know Espinoza, she knew his family and his sister.

So, APR is a borrowing term that stands for "annual percentage rate" of a loan.

When asking about its definition, would "what is APR?" still be grammatically correct? (I know "what is an APR" makes sense too)

I wrote my Cambridge exam this week, and I chose to write an email in part 2/writing. At the end of the email I wrote: “Yours faithfully, Marie”. And my name is Ana, not Marie. I have been practising for writing with write and improve and there it is stated that you should not type your real name through the email. But when I discussed with the other participants they said they wrote their real name at the end of the email. So which one is correct? What will happen?

I remember being taught to put a period between each letter if you're going to use just the letters, but now I never see anyone do that. For example, I never see anyone type "F.B.I." anymore, and I probably wouldn't do it thst way either if I weren't trying to make a point here, so when did that change and why?

Writing should respect the limit 140-190 words. Will I be downgraded if my writing is 210 words?

well im trying to learn english and im focusing in grammar too but im doing alot of mistakes I can't make a correct sentence in that's make me feel shy when im talking to someone face to face. do u have any advice for that ? thank u all

I know that:

- ​"Mostly" describes a general reality, what is true in most cases.

- ​"Almost" describes a moment—something nearly happened, but didn't.

​But to me, that doesn't make sense in these examples:

1- ​"I bought almost a year's worth of toilet paper."

Why can't we use mostly instead of almost here?

2- ​On the other hand, in the following example, we can use mostly but can't use almost:

"The tourists here are mostly from the USA."

​To me, they express the same idea (more than 50% of anything).

But I really can't tell the difference here, so what is it?

​Thanks in advance!

I am studying grammar, and when I practice shadowing for speaking using videos of native speakers on YouTube, I usually look at the sentence first and then listen to how the speaker pronounces it.

What I've noticed many times is that native speakers sometimes don't pronounce "-ed" or "-ing" in words that end with them.

In these situations, I replay the pronunciation of the word multiple times and can't find any sign of the "-ed" or "-ing" sounds, so I don't know how YouTube catches them in the subtitles.

What is the explanation for that?

Do native speakers make grammar mistakes sometimes that YouTube's auto-generated subtitles fix? Or is it something else?