You are here

Education Scene 1 - Language Focus

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 raj.kumar123,

The use of articles is more complex than that. You can find a good general explanation of when to use 'the' on our definite article page, and I'd also recommend you look through our indefinite article page as well. The sentence you ask about doesn't sound like an introductory sentence, and so presumably the possibility it speaks about has already been mentioned. This is one way of understanding why 'the' is needed here.

Best regards,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team

Hi raj.kumar123,

Thanks for providing the full context for the sentence you ask about. Some kind of article, probably 'the', is definitely needed before 'possibility'. I don't see 'possibility' being used in such a general sense here; it seems to me you're speaking about a definite, specific possibility, i.e. that there can be multiple perspectives. These perspectives can be diverse, but the possibility of them existing is something you've already mentioned in the first sentence.

I hope this helps. Articles can be a challenge, even for people whose native languages have them, so I'd encourage you to keep working on this. The more you read and write, the more you will come to understand them.

By the way, could you please ask questions such as this one on a more relevant page, e.g. definite article? That way other uses can benefit from your questions, too. Thanks.

Best regards,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team

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

Hello raj.kumar123,

Please remember that LearnEnglish is a free service offered by the British Council which is primarily a materials resource; the answers we provide in the comments sections are what we can manage in what other time we have. The more questions we have to answer, the longer it takes us and you have posted a large number of questions, some very long, in a very short space of time. Please be patient when waiting for answers to your questions - we answer when (and if) time allows, as an extra service which is not part of our primary role.

If you need quicker or fuller answers to your questions then I am afraid you will need to find (and pay for) a teacher; otherwise, I am afraid you will need to be patient.

Best wishes,

 

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Dear Peter, I am really sorry. I am feeling embarrassed. I am a new user here. Now, I will keep in my mind what you have told me.

Wish you a very happy new year.

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

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

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?

Pages