When you study English, you also learn the rules of grammar,
and I'm sure you've heard your teacher say.
This is the rule, and we never break it or we never say that.
Now I've been an English teacher
for I know 20 years and I've learned the hard way.
When I started teaching, I used to be like that.
I would give the rule the grammatical rule
and would be quite pleased with my explanation.
But there was always one smart,
spotty student at the back of the class
who would raise his hand and say, Mr.
Gideon, you just said that when the verb follows
a preposition, it's always in the -ing form.
Yes, that's correct.
Pedro, I'm interested in learning more.
Before coming to the lesson I was at the gym.
It's a rule we never break.
OK, how about GO ON?
huh? GO ON meaning to change the subject?
It's GO ON, followed by infinitive.
He was talking about his job and then he went
on to talk about his holiday.
Then the
ambulance came and took him to the hospital.
Nowadays, I know better.
I say this is the rule and it's almost never broken
or it's probably never broken, or I can't think of any exceptions to the rule.
But perhaps you can.
By the way, that's a tip for new teachers out there.
In today's video we are going to look
at some of these exceptions,
but I'm warning you, I'm warning you.
You wouldn't use them to trick your teacher.
You wouldn't do that, would you? Would you?
Good.
Let's go.
The rule: Never put WILL after, IF.
It's true that most of the time we don't put
will after IF when forming a conditional if you go out tomorrow,
can you pick up my coat from the dry cleaners?
Not if you will go out.
No, no. That's wrong.
Always wrong.
But here is one exception.
OK. You can use WILL for repetitive actions
in the present, and sometimes you use this as a form of criticism.
As someone who keeps doing the wrong thing.
So, for example, if you will keep bothering me
with your questions, I'll never finish this.
If you will keep bothering me.
This will here implies that the person he's
speaking to has repeatedly bothered him.
If you remove the WILL, it wouldn't be clear the WILL here
indicates a repetitive action in the present.
If you will play video games instead of studying.
You'll never pass your exams. OK.
This example, too Will Play emphasizes that he has repeatedly played
computer games instead of studying, and we're going to this study in more detail
and look at some other examples, too, where you can use, WILL after
IF in this video here
about how we use will as a present tense
because yes, it's a present tense, too much
with affirmative countable nouns. The rule:
when talking about quantities, we use many for countable
many books, many pencils or a lot of books or a lot of pencils.
But if the correct
for uncountable is,
we can use much in the negative.
Not much time. Not much beer.
But in the affirmative we use
lots of or lots of not much matches never used in positive sentences,
except for questions and off to very and too.
So the rule is you can use matching questions, as I said.
How much does it cost?
You can use MUCH after VERY it costs very much.
You can use MUCH after TOO.
It costs too much.
But in affirmative
sentences, out of these conditions.
We use lots of or lots of instead of MUCH.
For example, I spent a lot of time on this project.
I drank lots of beer, not I drank much beer.
And once again, while it's true that in informal conversation,
we do use A LOT OF rather than MUCH with affirmatives.
This is a convention, not a grammatical rule.
And you are free to break it
if you feel the sentence sounds better with MUCH
instead of a lot of and often does,
so you can use MUCH in a formal style.
For example, there is much to learn about English grammar.
After much effort, we succeeded in reaching the top of the mountain.
I have much experience of English grammar, so listen to me.
I spent much time on this project.
We also use much in affirmative sentences,
which have a kind of negative meaning or negative feeling.
Example Although we faced much disagreement,
we nevertheless won the vote.
It is with much regret
that I have decided to leave the company.
So for all of the above sentences, you can of course use A LOT OF
but MUCH is possible, even preferred in,
especially in a formal style with a formal tone.
The rule: in spoken English you can always, always
replace WHOM
with WHO you never need to use WHOM.
In spoken English, if you do, you'll sound like a pompous arse.
And yes, somebody actually said that to me.
While it's true that most of the time, most of the time you can get by perfectly
well in spoken English without using WHOM at all.
As often in English language,
there is an exception where you must use WHOM
and WHO would be incorrect even in spoken English.
And I'm not going to explain all the differences
between WHO and WHOM.
You can check out this video for a longer explanation,
but I'll just say that, you know, as I said,
most of the time you can drop WHOM and replace it with WHO for.
Example, who do you love?
Not many people would say, whom do you love, though it's grammatically correct.
We say.
Who did you give it to rather than to whom
Did you give it?
Now here's the exception in a prepositional phrase,
following many of, a few of,
some of, a number of, 234
of whatever the number you must use, WHOM, not WHO.
I'll just give you some examples to show you what I mean.
I spoke to a lot of people,
many of whom were interested in the product.
It was a large group, some of whom were children.
There were five policemen outside,
three of whom were carrying guns.
You could say three of them were carrying guns,
but then you have to make it into two sentences.
Was trying to keep everything in one sentence here, OK?
And often people use this construction.
Another example
there were a lot of demonstrators, a few of whom were getting angry.
I spoke to the campaigners,
a number of whom had donated money to the cause.
We talked to students, many of whom spoke English.
So in these cases, the rule is use whom,
not who formally informally spoken and written
whatever it is, whom, not who in most other cases.
Yes, you can.
Drop WHOM and just use WHO instead.
But here it's WHOM.
The rule, the comparative and the superlative
to make comparatives with one syllable adjectives,
you use -ER for the comparative and -EST for the superlative.
For example, big.
Bigger.
Biggest OK for adjectives of three syllables
or more use MORE and THE MOST, for example,
intelligent, more intelligent,
the most intelligent, she is more intelligent than him.
As for two syllable adjectives depends on the sound or the final syllable.
If it ends in a y sound, it takes -ER -EST, for example.
Easy, easier, easiest.
But if it ends in a T sound, it will take
the more most construction, for example.
Perfect, more perfect.
The most perfect.
There are more
rules for the two syllable adjectives, and it's a bit complicated,
so I might make a separate video about that.
But today I just want to talk about the exceptions.
Oh, and by the way, of course, there are one or two irregular ones
such as good, better,
best and bad , worse, worst.
But we won't talk about that.
I'm just going to look at the exceptions.
These are not grammatical rules, they all grammatical conventions,
which means it's fine to break them.
So generally, I'd follow these conventions, but
you might want to consider alternatives
depending on the words and the sounds
and the cadence of the phrase.
Even with two syllable phrases,
some words often have to pronunciations, for example, clever.
Some people say clever, cleverer
Cleverest.
Some people say clever. More clever.
The most clever.
Stupid, stupider.
The stupidest. Other people say more stupid.
Most stupid and others are less common.
But you might hear them sometimes.
Almost all of the time, you'll say. Easy.
Easier. Easiest.
But you might.
Sometimes you might hear someone say
This is more easy than I thought, and that's perfectly OK.
Sounds OK doesn't it? This is more easier than I thought.
Yeah, it is OK. With one syllable adjectives,
the -ER -EST are far
more common but, you can break the convention.
Old Older, the oldest, he's older than me.
That's fine, but take an adjective such as KEEN,
for example, shouldn't it be keen?
Keener, keenest? It's one
syllable, but
sometimes you'll hear people say MORE KEEN, for example.
Frankly, I'm more keen on the red ones than the blue ones.
And that sounds fine, doesn't it?
Even big,
big, bigger, biggest. Yes.
And you will say big, bigger, biggest in 99% of cases, but maybe just maybe in
some of your sentences, MORE BIG
may sound better here's an example.
Why did you choose the extra extra, extra extra large pizza?
Well, it was just more
big, that's all.
So perhaps not a great example,
but the MORE adjective leaves
a little tension because there is a gap between
the word more and the adjective, and sometimes you might want
that when you're being a bit playful with the language.
And if you're still not convinced,
even Shakespeare, even Shakespeare,
broke the rules.
With the conventions here in just a couple of examples, "Madam, I was very late more
near her, then I think she wished me.
some death
more long in spectatorship
and crueler in suffering.
The rule.
Don't use contractions in formal, written English.
Finally, one of the most common myths a fake rule
that I hear every day and almost every time I have a new student,
they tell me that this is what they learned at school.
"Don't use contractions in written English."
And this one, frankly, is just nonsense.
And in fact, the opposite is true.
It's one of the biggest misconceptions about writing contractions are fine.
You should use them even in formal, written English.
Okay, let me qualify that don't use.
Gonna, wanna, shoulda, coulda, dunno
In your essays?
No, these are informal contractions, but can't won't.
I'll we've, etc.
I'm these are perfectly correct.
Contractions are friendly and they get you closer to the reader.
And sometimes you may
wish to slow things down for the reader and you don't contract.
And these rules are exactly the same
in spoken English and in written English.
And if you don't contract your writing, you will end up
sounding stilted and ridiculous.
For example, it is a beautiful day, is it not?
No, it's a beautiful day, isn't it?
I am not available on Monday.
Let us meet on Tuesday if that is OK.
Well, that's really strange.
No, I'm not available on Monday.
Let's meet on Tuesday, if that's OK.
Can we not do this again?
Can't we do this again?
Do contract now.
It's true that for legal English and some highly academic papers,
you might reduce the number of contractions.
But even here, it's debatable but for emails
for CVS,
for breaking glass - cover, letters
for business correspondence and when you're writing a college essay.
Contractions are fine and they are not only fine, but you should use them.
And if you don't believe me, then listen to George
Orwell, who wrote in politics and the English language.
Contractions help close the distance between the writer and the reader,
and we have more about that in this video here.
So, yeah, learn the grammar.
It's always useful, but don't get trapped by these non-existent rules.
Be free.
Stay mellow. See you next time. Bye.