Danke!

I think it has more to do with region than situation. For example, here in the U.S. (at least my part of it), we would never use the word "chemist" to mean pharmacist, though it is common elsewhere. For us, "chemist" is more often used to refer to scientists who research and create things. Pharmacists are limited to dispensing medications. For example, a chemist I am acquainted with develops plastics and glues for a prominent U.S. company. Another chemist I know develops and tests medical compounds, but does not dispense them. Out here we are also more likely to say "drugstore" then "dispensary." (In fact, I think I only know the word "dispensary" in that context because of travel and foreign movies.) We use "drugstore" to refer to any convenience store that also includes a pharmacy. Usually those stores sell a variety of other products -- snacks, toiletries, makeup, magazines, greeting cards, etc. It is less common to see a store dedicated only to selling medicine, but they do exist. They tend to be independently owned rather than chains, and we often call those stores a "pharmacy" rather than a "drugstore" (though the words are technically interchangeable). In a large drugstore, only the section of the store that dispenses prescribed medications is called a "pharmacy." I hope that's helpful. Someone else will have to chime in about how the words are used in other English-speaking countries (and possibly even other states).

In English we don't say "has hunger." For us, it's a state of being, so we use the verb "to be" (e.g., "He is hungry"). The exception is in the first example below when we say "gets hungry." For example, "I get hungry whenever people talk about Thai food." It shows that before you weren't hungry and now you are and sounds ever so slightly more natural than "is hungry" in the first sentence. We have friends over for dinner, not get them. Now on to your sentences. I would write them like this:. 1. When HL gets hungry, he has some friends for dinner. 2. If HL is hungry, he will have some friends for dinner. 3. What would HL say if he were hungry? I think he would say, "I'll have some friends for dinner." 4. What would HL have said if he were hungry? I think he would have said, "I'll have some friends for dinner."

I would say one of these: Could you explain this grammar rule and include examples? Could you explain this grammar rule with examples?

"Had better" implies that a person should because there's a negative consequence otherwise. You can think of it as a much more forceful "should." It isn't the same as "must" because there is technically still a choice, but choosing wrong leads to something bad. Examples: You had better study for the final exam. (If you don't study, you might fail.) You had better not mess with my stuff when I'm gone. (If you do, I will do something mean in return.) "Would rather" is used to show a preference, especially when declining a suggestion or invitation or when choosing between different options. Examples: 1. Would you like to go to the park? No, I would rather stay home. 2. I would rather put this money in a savings account than waste it on lottery tickets. You can also use "would rather you/he/she" when making suggestions/expressing a wish. This is much, much softer and gentler than "had better." Examples: 1. I would rather you do the dishes than wash the car right now. 2. I would rather he do his work than keep complaining. In these examples, there is no implied threat. Nothing bad is going to happen if the person doesn't comply (except, perhaps, annoying the speaker).

If I ask my students to write an essay, and the maximum essay length is ten pages, I will tell them, "Write an essay of no more than ten pages" and they will understand ten pages is the upper limit. It's just another way of expressing a maximum. Another example: If I'm planning a party at a small venue, I might think, "No more than twenty people can attend" because any more than that would make the party too crowded.