It is pure Latin, and follows Latin conjugation. Doctors use Latin to describe the body and its illnesses. The Latin verb is appendere, to hang upon.
There are many English words of Latin origin that end in -ix or -ex, and form the plural in -ices. Index, indices; vertex, vertices; calix, calices; vortex, vortices; cervix, cervices We used to joke that the plural of Kleenex (a brand of tissue paper used primarily for blowing one's nose) had to be "Kleenices." But it's not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A gerund can be used as a noun--in addition to being an adjective and a participle. I like your painting. His singing is not as good today as it usually is. I'm embarrassed by your being out of breath. My writing software manuals pays for your education. Does my being here make you nervous? But be very careful with this construction. It's easy for it to become so complicated that it's difficult to understood. I'd advise you to avoid it when possible, to be safe. You can usually use the gerund as a participle, and have a much lower risk of being misunderstood. For example, just say, "Excuse me for being rude." In addition, the phrase can sometimes be constructed a different way: Does my mother being here make you nervous? This is what most people would say instead of "my mother's being here," which is what you would expect. It will be very difficult for you to determine which form of the construction to use! So just avoid it for now. It's never necessary; there's always a simpler and clearer way to say it.
You could say "Excuse my being rude, but that colour does not suit you" but if the rudeness happened, say, the day before, you might say "Excuse my rudeness yesterday, I was in a bad mood." This is the easiest construction: "Excuse me for being rude, but that colour does not suit you" "Excuse me for being rude yesterday" @Fraggle You are right. This is problematic. How come you can use the present tense for a past act? "Excuse me for being rude" is present tense, so how come you can say "Excuse me for being rude yesterday" ? To match the tense you should have to say "Excuse me for having been rude yesterday" but that looks over-complex, although also correct. @Cyrus At least you are not saying "Excuse my rude" That is a no-no. Added later. @Fraggle Apparently there is such a thing as the "Historical Present Tense" which is the answer to my previous question. http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/using-present-tense-in-a-story-about-the-past
Thank you so much. But how can I distinguish such situation like the following? In this particular case, you can use either construction. But that is not true of all verbs. You shouldn't say, "My car has become rusted by the salt in the air because I live so close to the ocean."
These are Great answers. Thank you so much. I have never seen such a construction(the following), and would you please help me to understand it? or could you show me some site that I can learn it? Should have to say In addition, which one should I say? Should have to say Should say
He was to have conducted something. Am I correctly explain the sentence above? A person who was to conduct something in the past, but did not do it. He must have conducted sth is equals with He should have conducted and He had to conducted. ....... Now, if we want to say a person was to do something in the past and certainly did it, so what must we say?
Can you see that little bird right up at the very top of the tree? Can you see that little bird right up on the very top of the tree? Can you see that little bird right up on the top of the tree? What is the difference between these?
With these examples: "Should have to say sorry" means should be required to say sorry. "Should say sorry" means ought to say sorry.
I can not understand the following. "Should have to say sorry" means should be required to say sorry.
Am I right? In addition, MUST HAVE BEEN can mean two meaning- it depends on the text: Must have p.p. doesn't always mean that ,for instance, something did not occur- It might occur. For instance: Clerks must have been in the garden. 1. Clerks who have to be in the garden, but they were nit. 2. Clerks who have to be in the garden were in the garden.
Should have to. Example. If you thought that all schoolchildren should be required to wear school uniform, and that it be made part of the school rules. You could say: "School Children should have to wear school uniform"
For 1. You might say, changing the instance slightly, "Clerks, who have to be in the office for 9 a.m., were not there." You could say "in the office" twice, but it sounds better to substitute "there" instead of having repetition. For 2. You might say "Clerks, who have to be in the office for 9 a.m. , were there." But better in this instance would be "Clerks, who have to be in the office for 9 a.m. , had arrived." You are also mixing tenses. So, either "Clerks, who had to be in the office for 9 a.m. , had arrived." or "Clerks, who have to be in the office for 9 a.m. , have arrived." is even better.
Just don't use that construction until you know English much better. Say, "My car is rusted from the salt..." "At" the top means he may be standing on a branch very close to the top. "On" the top means that the bird is actually standing on the uppermost part of the tree, so his body is above the tree. "Right up on top" is just an idiom. It's no different from "on top." In a sentence describing action, there could be a difference. "He climbed right up on top of the tree" means that he kept climbing steadily until he was on top. "He climbed on top of the tree" just means that he got there eventually, maybe not all in one climb. Cyrus: Please wait for an answer to each question before you ask another one!
No. "The very top" is just an idiom. "The top" means the same thing. However, this does not mean that you can simplify all English idioms. Unless someone tells you it's okay, as I just did, you should use the complete idiom.
Would you possibly readily elaborate the following? There are external costs when the price set by buyers and sellers of goods fails to include some costs, to anyone, that result from the production and use of the goods.
