I have actually never been formally taught verb tenses because the teachers of that year assumed that our teachers prior had already taught the concept. I've just picked up patterns in what other people said and associated certain variations of those verbs (which you would call 'past' or 'present' tense) with the actions that were done and what time the event was.

Are there any exceptions in which 'will' or 'would' can be used with a verb of the opposite tense?

How come the Prepositional Phrase isn't its own thing here? Normally the preposition would be the head of its own prepositional phrase that's an adjct to the Verb Phrase and containing the Noun Phrase as a comp, no?

I see how this is definitely an incorrect sentence to say, but I notice how me and my friends say this style of phrasing especially when we want to play a certain game together, and usually we would say "Yo let's go and [name of game]." It doesn't make sense, but to us we understand exactly what we mean.

So instead of Garth's reply being a determiner, it's called a genitive as an alternative?

So basically any adjective in a sentence is deemed a modifier, but are prepositional phrases modifiers as well?

Regarding the image, the hierarchal structure is similar to the diagram we learned in class where it would be words, phrases, then clauses(lowest to highest)

So could it be thought about in a way how Coordinating Conjunctions serve a purpose in its function; in other words, establish some kind of equal emphasis between two things but instead serve to compliment the main phrase in the sentence?

Concerning the diagram below, the edges help to connect the leaves and roots in which the roots constitute what words make up the phrase?

If my understanding is right, computers is a noun phrase because it refers to a whole group of that object? Similarly, is naïve an adjective phrase because the adjective can be expanded to multiple words in its definition?

Although not necessary, I feel as if there can be an easier approach to remembering the difference between cardinals and ordinals. Where cardinals are just regular numbers to quantify a noun that is stated, and ordinals can be thought about like placements that describe the noun that is stated. This way, ordinals aren't confused as determiners as cardinals are (if my understanding is correct)

I think it'd be a helpful tip to explain why this sentence in particular has a subordinating conjunction rather than using the word listed as a subordinator. I didn't have the chance to ask in class but a way to think about it can be if one clause is dependent on the other. In this example, I can perceive the sentence as 'the weather being stated' due to the 'person asking.'

I know that this is discussing the differences between the two main methods of communication, with speech being able to convey feeling in its messages and writing being able to keep connections between people over far distances, but wouldn't phone/video calls be a great substitute for everyone? In my opinion, it covers the flaws and compliments one another; it solves the issues of those who can't write and choose to speak directly to people and resolves the emotion that is missed in written messages with video calls(to capture their tone that is lost in writing).

Since the formation in speech is formatted in such a way that we learn phonology -> morphology -> syntax -> semantics in order to eventually create sentences/questions/ideas, is phonology is the main component that creates the distinction in numerous dialects and/or accents in one language?

Connecting back to my annotation made in the Preface, this is the main reason why such structures should be changed to be more inclusive, not exclusive. Prominent in the U.S., people of many different cultures and backgrounds integrate into society which brings about the many varieties we have in the English Language. Children growing up with these variations shouldn't be punished in their academic careers for utilizing a language they've grown up with. Yes, I do believe schools should provide some means of teaching the form of 'Standard English,' but it should not be the only method of communicating ideas between one another. The system should reward everyone for the use of their native language, if they can clearly convey their ideas with meaning behind them, instead of being punished.

I mentioned this in class, but the use of rubrics reflect this behavior made by teachers when analyzing a student's writing. Following a set structure to convey certain ideas limits the creative leeway students can take in order to showcase that. Not everyone can make use of 'Standard English,' and so the structure should be expanded to cover the different variations of English that would welcome more concrete proposals in students' writings.

This is my example of a test annotation