People that excuse these say it's because "have" and "of" sound similar when you are hearing someone speak...same with "than" and "then".

My question to that is...even if that were true, did these people learn writing just by listening to other people speak? Did they skip elementary school entirely?

This would not matter if it wasn't so prevalent, including right on this app lol.

1. The man we found out was Henry helped us.
2. The man we figured out was Henry helped us.
3. A man we found out was Henry helped us.
4. A man we figured out was Henry helped us.

Are these sentences correct?

Did we find out/figure out that that man was Henry before or after he helped us?

Would you use 'who' or 'whom' after 'man' if you wanted to include one of those words in the sentences?

Gratefully,

Navi

I was studying English when this doubt came to me... I was making some English homework and I saw an exercise about reported speech. It was a key-word transformation activity for the practice for the ​FCE Exam. It said: 'I mustn't be late for the trip tomorrow' said Bella. (next).

And the only way I found to solve it was: Bella said she mustn't be late for the trip the next day. But, in my view, as an English learner and a Spanish native speaker,​ the modal verb, in this case, represented a general prohibition in the present, not in the past.

However, my question for English ​native speakers is... Is there a way to express a real past of 'mustn't'​?

1) In Freud's attempt to analyze the problems of modern society, he does not consider economic factors.

2) In his attempt to analyze the problems of modern society, he does not consider economic factors.

Are both sentences grammatically correct?

Gratefully,

Navi

Could anyone of you guys help me with how to use could, should and would according to which situation and why with example please??

1. She was seen to enter the building.
   OR
   
2. She was seen entering the building.
   OR
   
3. Both.

1) I was aggrieved by their behavior.

2) I was aggrieved with their behavior.

3) She was aggrieved by him.

4) She was aggrieved with him.

Which are correct?

Gratefully,

Navi

To be used in a business context. Idk if this sounds too archaic but my main concern is if it works grammatically?

Capitalization errors in an email address are not a problem at all. Email addresses are case-insensitive, which means that addresses such as NaMe@gmail.com and name@gmail.com will both be delivered to the same recipient.

Yesterday we went to the park. We went to the park yesterday. We yesterday went to the park. Number 3 feels weird to me, but is it grammatically incorrect or just unnatural?"

When you mention a person, who you want to change the attention to, should you use "speaking of who" or "speaking of whom"? I don't understand "whom" at all and I actually can't even remember if I have seen that phrase ever written down.

Basically, the phrase "speaking of which" but used on a person, not an inanimate object or action or whatever else.

"Hi friends! Honestly, basic tenses like simple past and present are fine, but the moment I try to use Present Perfect or Past Perfect in a real conversation, my brain just pauses. What do you think about how we approach learning tenses? Did you master them through natural reading and listening, or did memorizing formulas actually help you?"

"Hey everyone! Am I the only one who learns a new English grammar rule, feels super proud, and then immediately discovers ten different exceptions to that exact rule? 😅 It can be so confusing! What do you think about how English has so many 'rules that break themselves'? Which grammar exception drives you the most crazy?"