Answer:
The basis of this argument is that verbs are conjugated only in the present and past tense. If we want to refer to the future, we have to use the auxiliary verb will, or the be going to phrase followed by the verb in present or past, or the present tense. Since in English, there is no change in the conjugation of the verbs for the future, some linguistics claim that there are two tenses (past and present) while others claim that there are three because we form the future tense with the addition of the auxiliary or use present simple or continuous.
Explanation:
Linguistics such as Quicker Al claims that there are two tenses, present, and past since they are expressed by inflections in their verbs, while future does not have inflections. There is no future tense, but there is future time. Time is related to our perception of reality, making the future subjective. On the other side, tense expresses when an action happens, taking into account the moment that the person is speaking. Linguistics such as Hatav or Klein claims three tenses' existence, past, present, and future. They state that we can refer to the future with the addition of the auxiliary verb will, or the phrase be going to, or the use of present simple, or continuous even though there is no specific inflection in the verb, as it happens in other languages like Portuguese or Spanish. They identify the future with the definition of tense.
Answer:
I believe it's B: Few allusions
Please, report me if wrong.
<span>If an adverb modifies a verb, where should you generally place it in a sentence?
A. Near the verb, since you already said that before the verb is incorrect.
</span>
Yes they are correct I think.
Answer: maybe it’s personification
Explanation:
Ok, so it can’t be rhyme, because there is no rhyme.
It can’t be a simile, because it’s not comparing 2 unlike things using like or as
It can’t be a onomatopoeia because it’s not using any sounds
So it’s probably personification
