see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
ANDThe pub the the Horse and Groom was having its sign replaced. After the work had been done, the manager spotted a mistake. He rand the builders and said " The gaps between horse and and and and and groom are not the same distance"
This sentence is grammatically correct but does not have much meaning.
In a line of dialogue in a story. Or if you are quoting a person. So if you were to say and 7 times consecutively, and i quoted you on paper, it would be grammatically correct.
8 times. I already told you that: that that "that" (that "that" that that teacher used) was grammatically correct.
I think that this is a riddle; that this is too easy; that something must have been left out of the question; that I should not even bother; that the author of the question doesn't know how easy it is; thatthis answer is grammatically correctly; that this answer is done.
It would be a complete sentence if it was grammatically correct. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. (The verb should match the subject, which is plural.)
not grammatically correct, but mathematically correct
Yes. Although this is not a very common phrase at all, it is still grammatically correct. This phrase is depicted as an old phrase which was used in medieval times, this is why you may hear it being used in medieval-based movies.
I came to your office several times and did not see (s) you._______Better:I came to your office but could not find you.
It would be a complete sentence if it was grammatically correct. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. (The verb should match the subject, which is plural.)
It may be grammatically correct, but it is a logical absurdity. more/fewer is about counting more/less is about amount … so… no, it is not correct.
I would say "beaten".
Despite the fact that money was counted three times, it still fell short of the correct total.