Rob and Ashlie discuss how to use ‘going to’ and ‘will’ to talk about plans and make predictions.

Watch the video. Then go to Task and do the activities.

Download

Language level

Intermediate: B1

Comments

Hello Lebenswelt,

The names of teams can be either singular (when we are thinking of the club or team as an institution) or plural (when we are thinking of the team as a group of players). In most contexts the speaker can choose whichever they prefer.

Best wishes,

 

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

fantastic

India is a multicultural and multilingual land, whose identity lies in its diversity. Is 'comma' required before 'whose' in the preceding sentence?
I am confused. I have just read about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. It seems to me that whose-clause is a non-restrictive clause, and a comma is required.
If we don't use comma, then it means that we are talking about one particular India out of many.
Or, we may drop comma to maintain the flow of reading.
Please help

Hello raj.kumar123,

Restrictive relative clauses, also called 'defining relative clauses', give us information which is important to the meaning of the sentence; they define the noun not in the senses of identifying one among many (if that were the requirement then no defining relative clauses would be possible for unique nouns at all) but in the sense of telling us something which is part of the identity of the thing being described, rather than just extra information which is merely an interesting note.

Consider this sentence:

India is a multicultural and multilingual land which borders Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh.

Clearly, this is a defining relative clause: it provides information which helps to define 'India'. It does not tell us which India we are talking about; it simply clarifies what 'India' is. Your sentence is similar and I would use no comma.

I hope that helps to clarify it for you.

Best wishes,

 

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Dear Peter,
Thanks for the information. I am still doubtful. Please pay attention to the following sentence: I know the doctor who lives in my neighbourhood. This sentence, to the best of my knowledge, is an example of defining relative clause. On the other hand, the sentence- I know the doctor, who lives in my neighbourhood- is an example of non-restrictive clause. Both the sentences have different meanings. in the first sentence, 'who lives in my neighbourhood' is a defining clause and is essential to refer to the doctor, whereas who-clause is extra information in the second sentence, and the second sentence can be written without who-clause without changing its meaning. Am I right?

My question is- Can I write my sentence with and without comma ?

India is a multicultural and multilingual land, whose identity lies in its diversity.
India is a multicultural and mulilingual land whose identity lies in its diversity.

Are these sentences grammatically correct? If yes, do they convey different meanings and show different attitudes of the speaker.

May I kindly quote some information from http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/which_that_who_comma_or_not.htm ?

"my wife has always been close to her parents who live in the same village as us. " this sentence is wrong. It
should be ...parents, who live... (unless she has other parents)

Is this explanation correct in your opinion?

Hello raj.kumar123,

Whether or not a piece of information is defining or not may be apparent from the information itself, or it may be context-dependent. That is why the same clause can be both a non-defining and a defining relative clause. It appears to me that you have a good grasp of the use of relative clauses and should be able to decide from your context whether or not a comma is necessary. The original sentence appears to me to be likely to be a defining relative clause, but it does depend on the context.

As far as your second question goes, we have a policy of not commenting on other sites or the information they contain.

Best wishes,

 

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

I find it problematic when I write a sentence like this- "‘Dharma’ comes from the Sanskrit root dhri, which means ‘to support or sustain’".
I have used a comma before which-clause because I think that this clause gives only extra information, and it, if deleted, does not change the meaning of the first clause. Is my criteria foolproof?

Please guide me. I am a new user here. I am really excited to see the experts helping the learners. I find this site a great platform to improve my level of English. However, at times, I feel reluctant to ask questions as though they would overburden the experts.

All Kudos for this effort.

The only downside of this site is that it takes unexpectedly more time to approve and publish comments/replies. Had there been Live Chat Support, the the site would be (would have been) more helpful.

I love this site. :-)

Hello raj.kumar123,

As I said in several other answers to similar questions, whether or not a relative clause is defining or not depends often upon the context. In this example, the comma appears necessary as the sentence without the comma would suggest that there are several different kinds of 'dhri', and you are identifying which one you are referring to.

As for your other comment, while I am glad you like the site I think you rather misunderstand the primary role of the team here. Our main role is to maintain the site and add new material; our secondary role is to answer questions related to that material. It is not our purpose to answer any and all questions which users may throw at us - if we tried to do this then we would have little or no time for anything else! When we can find some time we try to help our users but we are not able to answer all questions, nor can we provide answers immediately. For that kind of service I am afraid it is necessary to pay for a teacher and LearnEnglish is, of course, an entirely free service.

Best wishes,

 

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

I have a question-

"The paper attempts to reveal that possibility of multiple perspectives problematizes access to absolute truth."

Is it a correct sentence? Does it require 'the' before 'possibility' and 'access'?

Where are you, Peter? I have been waiting for your response.

Pages