This is because in the "U.S.A.", people in all the regions in the U.S.A. historically migrated throughout an "entire land mass" (essentially) ; and this "land mass" tends to be more "homogeneous" (as opposed to "British English" speakers; who speak with different dialects, accents). Note that the United Kingdom, including Great Britain, is further isolated from the U.S.A.—by a huge ocean— than the "relatively more homogeneous physical region"/ and thus the "relatively more linguistic region".
Hello. Although you showed the book to which the question refers, you did not say which incident the question refers to, as there are many incidents covered in the book. This makes it impossible for your question to be answered, but I will try to help in the best possible way.
The main factor that points to the transition from old forms of war to new forms of war during the first world war was the use of technologies, mainly those driven by the industrial revolution, which gave the army a warlike power never seen before and allowed each army had access to fighter planes, tanks, submarines, toxic gases and others that did not exist in previous wars and that caused much greater destruction.
He is the pronoun in the sentence :)
Answer:
Relative clause
Explanation:
It's a Relative Clause because of the relative pronoun 'whose'
Answer:
why
Explanation:
thx brainliest pls need it now
