My question is rather long but I would be really grateful if you could answer it because to me it is really important
I have been wondering if it is possible to say the sentences that I am going to write because I have never seen them written or even said maybe there is a nuance to note or maybe not, maybe they are right in formal speech but not in informal…if there is any of these nuances or other comment I will be grateful to read them:

The sentences are these:
1)It is impossible that he is there
2) It is impossible that he be there
3) It is impossible that he has gone there
4 ) It is impossible that he may be there
5) It is impossible that he may have gone there
6) It is impossible that he might have gone there
7 )It is impossible that he would do it
8) It is impossible that he would have done it
9 )It is impossible that he will do it
10 )It is impossible that he might do it
11( It is impossible that he had done it
12 ) It is impossible that he should be there
13) It is impossible that he should have gone to the party

Most of these make a little sense but they do not sound like typical English. I speak French, and I believe Spanish grammar is similar to French grammar. All of these sound like they could be direct translations of what a French speaker might say, for example.

#2 is wrong–no reason for subjunctive here. Most of the others just do not make much sense. “Impossible” is a very strong word; to say it with words of uncertainty like “might” or “may” does not make sense in English.

1)It is improbable that he is there
2) It is improbable that he be there
3) It is improbable that he has gone there
4 ) It is improbable that he may be there
5) It is improbable that he may have gone there
6) It is improbable that he might have gone there
7 )It is improbable that he would do it
8) It is improbable that he would have done it
9 )It is improbable that he will do it
10 )It is improbable that he might do it
11( It is improbable that he had done it
12 ) It is improbable that he should be there
13) It is improbable that he should have gone to the party

Most of these are awkward. “Improbable” is not usually used this way. Use “unlikely,” then some of these would sound OK. For example, #7 “It is unlikely that he would do it.” The conditional makes sense here precisely because the sense is conditional. None of the other verbs have that conditional sense. (“Should” is conditional but has the sense of duty, so it does not normally make sense with the word improbably or unlikely.)

And what about these??

1) I did it in order that he didn’t go to Spain
2) I did it in order that he might not go to Spain
3) I did it in order that he would not go to Spain
3 ) I did it in other that he could not go to Spain
4) I did it in order that he couldn’t go to Spain
5 ) I did it in order that he should not go to Spain

#3 are the only ones that works in English. This is also conditional.

Could I use the same way those sentences with ” so that ” instead of ” in order that ”

Only the #3 examples. Again conditional make the most sense.

Is ” would rather ” correct in indirect speech without changing the tense as in ” He said that he would rather not go to the party ”

This is good English and makes perfect sense. A Spanish speaker might say “He said that he would prefer not to go.” This means the same thing, but “he would rather not go” is more typical English.

I hope this helps.

Dear Ms. W:

You wrote:

> Please tell me how I would address the former Vice President of the United
> States in a formal business letter?
>
>
The address normally would either be Mr. or The Honorable. For the salutation either Mr. or Vice-President. Generally, people who attain a significant office (Bishop, Mayor, Governor, Senator, etc.) are addressed by
their title out of respect even after they are no longer in that office. That is also true of retired military. “Mr.” is OK in America, though in some other countries with more aristocratic tradition, a recipient might be less receptive to a “mere” Mister.

Dear T:

You wrote:

> Is there some way one could obtain a list of all the allowable English
> syllables?
> Thank you,
>

Some linguistic texts list different phonemes (distinct sounds) but I am not familiar with the number of syllables. English, unlike some Asian languages for example, is not really syllabic in the sense that syllables provide meaning. Like Samuel Johnson’s attempt to record all the words, I doubt if the distinct syllables could be proscribed.

Having said that, I would take a look at a Rhyming Dictionary (there are several on the market). That would certainly give you an idea of many of the syllables that end words in English.

Now, if you are referring to roots, prefixes, and suffixes, regardless of how many syllables there are in them, then take a look at Word-Part Dictionary from Edicom Systems. This is fairly exhaustive without including specialized roots for science, medicine, and other fields. This is available through English Plus.

I hope this helps a little.

Dear A:

You wrote:

I was wondering how many abbreviations are there in the English language and in what types are they divided into.

Thank you,
A (Brazil)

There are hundreds of commonly used abbreviations in English. Thousands, of course, if you start considering geographic abbreviations. You can buy several different Dictionaries of Abbreviations.

In English, there are two kinds of abbreviations commonly recognized. The first kind are “true” abbreviations, a shorter way of writing a word or phrase. These include some abbreviations that have entered English from other langauges, especially Latin. They would include such shortened words as “Rd.” for “Road” or “etc.” from the Latin “et cetera.”

The second kind of abbreviations are those that are pronounced as though they were a new word. These are called acronyms. They include such words as “scuba,” which is short for “self-contained underwater breathing apparatus” or “NATO” (in English pronounced to rhyme with the name “Plato”) which is short for “North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”

I hope this helps. Our web site and our English reference program Grammar Slammer contains many of the commonly used English abbreviations including abbreviations used in geographical addresses and abbreviations used in measurements.

I hope this helps.

Dear RL:

You wrote:

Dear Sir

I believe the use of present participles as premodifiers and post modifiers is hard to codify. For instance, we can use ‘an escaping prisoner’, or ‘a drowning man’ but not ‘a walking man’. However, one can say: The man walking etc. Would you please share your idea about this particular phenomenon of English language?

RL

You can say “the walking man,” but it would be unusual. Present participles follow the noun they modify when they are in phrases. “Walking” is almost always used in a phrase. In English people seldom just “walk.” They walk somewhere or in a certain manner. Therefore, we would be more likely to say something like the following:
The man walking with a limp is a beggar. (his manner of walking)
He said he saw the woman walking down the street. (where she was walking)
Sometimes the participle follows the noun for emphasis. For example there was a recent film entitled “Dead Man Walking.” “Walking Dead Man” would have meant the same thing and would have sounded just as “correct” to an English ear, but the first is more rhythmic and emphatic. (The rhetorical term for this rhythm is “cursus.”)

There is also a subtle sense that a participle before a noun is more descriptive of the noun–it is more consciously adjectival–while the participle following the noun emphasizes the action more. Since most people walk, a “walking woman,” could describe nearly anyone, while a “woman walking” emphasizes the action more at that particular time (the idea being she could have been doing something else). This is fairly subtle, and more an issue of style than grammar.

I hope this helps.