"the expression "in slow motion" means watching something ____________"

And my problem is, the correct answer is more slowly than UNusual

, like how in the word is the use of unusual correct here? Please do NOT talk about if it's slower than or more slowly like last time... I've never heared "___than unusual" before it's always "usual"

Which collocation is native English?

e.g. 'What time would you come over, so I can make sure I am ready(?)'

1. Whether I'll go to the event I don't know.
2. I'd rather eat out.
3. I'm late, aren't I?
4. Neither of the movies is interesting.

Chapter 1

[no indent]A goblin walked into the pub and Dareth told him to go to hell.   

          [Indent]The goblin said, “Curses!” and showed him a dagger.

[indent]Dareth smiled, then withdrew his wand from its pouch. He aimed the wand at the Goblin’s head. The Goblin’s eyes became large and fearful.

  Is that correct? Or should it be:

Chapter 1  

[no indent]A goblin walked into the pub and Dareth told him to go to hell. The Goblin said, “Curses!” and showed him a dagger.          

[indent] Dareth smiled, then withdrew his wand from its pouch. He aimed the wand at the Goblin’s head. The Goblin’s eyes became large and fearful.

This came about when discussing Cinderella. Given that the mice in the film are named, could it also be correct to refer to them or address them as “mouses” when describing this specific and particular set of characters? I’m kind of borrowing from the “fish” vs “fishes” when referencing multiple species/types. Now that I’ve typed it out I’m doubting myself, but wondering if anybody has any input.

So, example, say that someone does something, why is it incorrect /why have all of the sources ive checked so far say that it would be incorrect to say that whoever did whatever, "seems to've done (something, someone, somewhere, somewhat, it, whatever word need be inserted here.)" It makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I don't want to hear shit about whatever the good goddamn an "auxiliary" verb or whatever the fuck that is existing*. the sentence, "Oh damn, welp he seems to've gone n done it again." IS VALID ALONG WITH ANY OTHER RAMBLING BEARING THE TO'VE FAMILIARITY.

((*Unless whatever that is, is quite literally the only reason why, in which case be mean and spit in my face. 💀😈))

edit- just thought about it being used in the context of possessiveness. rot and die because I will set myself ablaze on This Hill. yes i was here this morning with 2 unrelated questions answered by the same baller, take my third of no relations too pls. hawk to've contractonthathang or whatever.

I am writing an essay and I feel like it would be good to use the word since I wanna mention multiple harms but I'm not sure if it's good.

For example:

"However, I argue that abortion should be legal to prevent significant potential harms from occurring to pregnant women. These potential harms include negative health impacts, negative financial consequences, and human rights violations."

Is the usage of "harms" here wrong grammatically? (Grammarly and my friend say so but I'm not sure)

Any help would be appreciated

When people write a span of years in the same century but different decades they usually drop the first two digits of the second number, as in 1989-96. If the two years are in the same decade, is it OK to drop the third digit too, as in 1990-7?

A. "John's broad range of skill sets lend not only to his ability as a..."

B. "John's broad range of skill sets lends not only to his ability as a..."

Thank you for your advice!

Hey everyone!

How might I go about writing about something owned by a business ending in 's? Would I just add another apostrophe after the s?

Ex: for a business called "Sally's", would I write "Sally's' beverages were..."?

Edit: I suppose I'm asking how to use the possessive pronoun of a possessive pronoun? Lol

"As Oscar leaves, you see her act as if nothing happened, taking a bite out of the sugary pastry [...]"

This is how I've been writing a lot of my sentences for a while, using a gerund as a way to add another consecutive action or to elaborate on the previous action, while also using less linking words. I'm not a native English speaker/writer, but the way I write it feels natural and correct to me, but I can't explain why does it feel correct. For all I know, it might not be.

Is this something that I've made up myself or is it a viable way to use gerunds? If not, what's a better way to make longer sentences feel more dynamic?

Writing a paper in that style. Quotes include "... the first bill to attempt to define civil rights for all Americans", "the Civil Rights Movement", "the Civil Rights Act" and "the consequences of the act". Have I gotten all that right?

is an autochthon(- an indigenous inhabitant of a given area) inherently implied to be human or nah? don't ask why cus i couldnt tell ya LMFAO

hey fellas just joined just now solely for this question but should an apostrophe s be used to indicate possessiveness in regards to the word it, i.e. "It's border" like as in a state/country's border? i had to ask because I asked Google at first and it said yes in every case (like i suspected) but then I got more specific and the AI turned to shit with no further answers from real folk at a glance

You can say "he ran off the road on accident" or "by accident" but you can't say "he ran off the road due to accident"

You can say "he ran off the road due to negligence" but you can't say "he ran off the road by negligence"

Is there a rule here for what objects these prepositions can take?

Select the most appropriate option that can substitute the segment in capital letters in the given sentence. If there is no need to substitute it, select 'No substitution'.

There have been NUMEROUS attempts made by the citizens to restore parity.

1. More numerous
2. Quite numerous
3. Most numerous
4. No substitution

A is going to throw a party, he needs someone to help him cook meat. So the party is about to happen ( on the weekend).

A: Do you think you could help me cook meat?

B: I (have worked)/ (worked) as a cook before. So I can help you cook meat.

People tell me that I can't use the present perfect "have worked". But why?

I’m not sure if this is the right community for this question, but after a silly internet argument I’ve been left wondering. I would say it is, since the word has been rearranged into three separate words. The person I was debating with insisted it’s not an anagram because the letters remain in the same order, and therefore are not rearranged.

I am having trouble seeing which of these sentences is correct,

1. Information about some individuals' criminal history is missing.
2. Information about some individuals' criminal histories is missing.
3. Information about some individuals' criminal histories are missing.

There is only one criminal history per individual but there are multiple individuals. So, I am not sure if history is supposed to be plural or not. I am also not sure if it is supposed to be is/are after histories.

I am writing a paper and have the followong statement:

“Compared to others who are at the same development stage as myself, I tend to favor isolation far more than intimacy. I prefer to spend time alone, viewing others as interferences to my activites rather than tools to enhance the engagement of those activities.”

Should I write “viewing others as interferences to my activities rather than tools to enhance the engagement of those activities.”

Or

“viewing others as interferences to my activities rather than as tools to enhance the engagement of those activities.”

Also, should I replace “the engagement of those activities” with “their engagement,” or is that too confusing?

Thanks!

In an essay I wrote, "During His time on earth, Jesus intentionally made time to be alone in silence before God." I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct. Does the sentence need to be changed to, "During Jesus' time on earth, He intentionally made time to be alone in silence before God."? Any advice is appreciated.

Akane recited to Yuika a message from the class president: "We can make this work if we try compromising."

1. Excitement was rushing through Yuika's veins as she heard the word "compromising." (Quotation marks)

or 2. Excitement was rushing through Yuika's veins as she heard the word compromising. (Italics) or 3. Excitement was rushing through Yuika's veins as she heard the word compromising. (None)

Should I use in or into here, and why?

The French in the Middle Ages were divided in/into three classes.

When writing a work of fiction, are they both fine? Or is one better than the other?

The abbreviated version sounds more natural to me, but I'm not sure if it's correct to use it.

Is there such a thing? Would it be possible to say "you may be being watched without your knowledge" or "the ticket could be being sold as we speak"?

I know why I think this exists but a quick google search only shows passive modals and standard passive continuous (you are being watched...)

To express the aforementioned sentence as a possibility, could I use passive continuous modals? Or do I need to say "it's possible you are being watched"?

Thanks in advance!

There were four books on the table. Each book was a different colour.

There were four books on the table. Each of the books was a different colour.

At first I thought ‘each book’ referred to books in general but in the example above it clearly refers to specified books

EDIT: 'each of the books' not 'each of the book'

Por ejemplp

All his brothers were stronger than him (sounds wrong when you add, see below)
vs
All his brothers were stronger the he (was)
Grammar check finds the opposite. I am perplexed..

Recently I've noticed that the possessive apostrophe seems to be disappearing.

When I look at Reddit, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other platforms, the possessive apostrophe is left off the majority of the time.

So instead of "We went to my grandmother's house" you'll see "We went to my grandmothers house."

Anyone else noticing this? Any theories about why it's happening?