The expressions refer to different states, For example, John goes outside briefly where the temperature is below freezing. When he returns indoors, his friend asks whether it is cold outside. John responds, "I feel the cold but it's not windy and so it's not bad." In essence, John is noting that he is aware that the ambient temperature outside is cold but he does not say that he himself "feels cold." The difference in meaning stems from the article "the." "I feel THE cold" means I notice the cold temperature of the air. John is referring to an external, atmospheric state: the cold (a noun) , He noticed that the air temperature was cold; maybe he saw ice and/or snow all over and/or saw his breath in the air. He noticed the condition of coldness. However, since he was wearing very warm clothing, he did not FEEL cold. The latter expression (without "the") refers to the response of his body to the cold temperature. It refers to his internal response to the external condition. "Cold" is an adverb and describes the verb "feel." To "feel the cold" means to take note of the atmospheric condition. To "feel cold" describes a person's physical (and sometimes emotional) state which is not necessarily dependent on external air temperature. For example, a person who is sick can "feel cold" -- and even shiver -- despite warm temperatures and even being under blankets. It refers to their internal state. In short, the grammatical construction of the two phrases are different and have different meanings.

The first question asks what action is taken regarding the remaining food. For example, is the food thrown in the garbage, is it eaten by animals, is it left on the street? The question asks what eventually occurs (happens) to the food? The second question asks about the location of the leftover food: does it remain on the street, in garbage pails/bins, or is it removed by city workers, etc.? The questions ask for different information regarding the food: (1) what becomes of it in contrast to (2) the location of the leftover food.

The best way to improve your vocabulary and knowledge of grammatical patterns is to read a LOT. Read anything and everything in which you are greatly interested AND which is at a level where you know most of the words. There are many sources on the internet including on Youtube which is especially helpful because you can hear pronunciation. Read texts out loud after you know the words to practice pronunciation yourself and how words are grouped together when speaking. It is much easier to remember words and phrases when the content interests you. Of course, just reading doesn't help your ability to understand conversations or to speak. Therefore it is also necessary to do a LOT of listening -- for example, to cartoons, TV shows, films, documentaries, Youtube videos, etc. about any topic that interests you. I recommend that you first find ones with subtitles (click on "CC" and choose the language in "settings.") Personally I found same language subtitles -- in your case English subtitles for English language videos -- most helpful but I also benefited from subtitles in my own language (English) when I knew more of the language I am studying (Russian). You can also slow down the speech in "settings" to .75 to help you understand better. With subtitles you can stop the video and read them -- looking up words you don't know -- and then go back to understand the people speaking. Note that the subtitles don't always match the spoken words exactly. In addition, if you want to be able to SPEAK English, you have to practice. Having regular conversations with a native speaker through iTalki is very helpful. If you have difficulty speaking at first, schedule a 1/2 hour. The more you do it, the more you will improve. Good luck!

If the sentence ends with "outbreak," then what you have written is correct : "have now been infected in the outbreak." However, if another clause is added after "outbreak," then it is possible to put "now" at the beginning of the second phrase. Note that "now" would then modify the second phrase. For example, "Fifteen elderly people have been infected in the outbreak now that they are all eating together at the same time in the dining hall of the nursing home." Another example: "All the children have now finished lunch." "All the children have finished lunch, now that the lunch period has been extended. In these examples, the second clause explains the first. "Now that" is an expression that means, "since" or "due to the fact that."

Some verbs are followed by a direct object ( I saw the cat. Cat=direct object). Other verbs are followed by a preposition and an indirect object, that is, the action is being done "to," "for," "with regard to," "in consideration of," "from," "about" someone or something. The verb "to watch" takes a direct object. I watched train pass by. I watched the sunset. I watched a good show on TV. The verb "to listen" takes an indirect object. I listened TO the entire program. I listened TO the wind. I listened TO the radio. The verb "to hear" takes a direct object. I heard a loud noise. I heard the singer on TV. I heard the rain on the roof. Some verbs can take a direct object and an indirect object in the same sentence. For example, I explained the grammar rule [direct object] TO you [indirect object]. I gave a book [direct object] TO my friend [indirect object]. I am doing this work [direct object] FOR my boss (indirect object). I do not know what your native language is but European languages generally distinguish verbs that take a direct object from ones which take indirect objects (they are called transitive vs. intransitive verbs) but they do not do so in the same way from language to language. (Russian for example has different grammatical cases for direct and indirect objects and their pronouns.) The grammatical term for the verbs is not important. Rather, you just have to memorize which ones require a preposition in English. Also remember to use an article (the, a) before "radio." He listens to the radio. ("He listens to radio" is not correct.)

For the first sentence, there are several options. As Gary noted, you did not include a critical part of the verb. Two simple options are: "he IS always changing the channel," (present tense) or "he WAS always changing the channel" (past tense). If you remove the adverb, "always," then the you will see that the "verb" in fact is composed of two parts: "is changing" (which indicates continuous action in the present tense ) or "was changing" (which indicates continuous action in the past tense. The "verb" consists of both words but the first word indicates whether the action is in the present or was in the past. Note that there are other verb tenses in English that use a verb ending in "ing" TOGETHER WITH other words before it. For example, "he has been changing the channel for the past half hour, trying to look at two programs at the same time," or "he had been changing the channel when he heard a knock on his door. Thus, in English " a "verb" is not only a single word in some tenses. The second sentence doesn't make sense but not because of the verb. First, since "star" refers to a countable object, if you want to talk about it generally, it should be plural (stars). Moreover, since "star" can refer to an object in the sky or an esteemed person in a profession, it is important to describe what kind of star you are talking about: for example, movie star, pop star, or opera star? If a previous sentence provided some context, then the meaning would be clear. Context would also explain WHERE you are "seldom watching" "American "stars" -- that is, on the street, on film, in the newspapers, on TV? . I am guessing that you more likely mean tat you are not interested in American movie, pop or opera stars and seldom follow the gossip about them that appears in newspapers.

In the US, "package" is used for most items that come in soft packaging (e.g., cellophane, soft plastic, paper). Pasta is also sold in a cardboard box so it is also appropriate to refer to a "box of spaghetti." However, if the pasta is wrapped in cellophane or soft plastic, then "package of spaghetti" is appropriate. Similarly, rice can be sold in a box, a plastic bag or a canvas sack. Thus, one could refer to a "package of rice," "box of rice," "bag of rice," or a "sack of rice." "Package" can also refer to anything that one receives by mail that is not a letter, regardless of whether it comes in soft packaging or a cardboard box and regardless of size. For example, the postal systems handles a lot of "packages" around Christmas. If an item is small, one would often refer to a "packet." Starbucks sells individually wrapped "packets of instant coffee." Yet it is appropriate to refer to a "pack" or "packet" of gum. A "pack" can also refer to animate objects: a "pack of wolves," a "pack of dogs." In short, the use of "pack," "package" and "packet" is highly variable. :)

The sentence can be a bit confusing when taken out of context yet there are still clues as to the speaker's meaning. Normally -- that is, grammatically -- "this" without a noun following it (this book, this subject) would refer to the subject that just preceded. Thus, "this" area of interest grammatically should refer to Central America. Yet it does not because that would make no sense. Why would he tell his audience that his company is expanding to Southeast Asia if the audience was interested in Central America? Moreover, he does so at the beginning of his talk so obviously the information is important to his audience. This is an important clue why "this ...area" must refer to Southeast Asia. Note that the speaker refers to an area of interest "for most of the audience today" without naming it because it is so obvious to everyone in the room. We can assume that the topic of the larger conference/meeting is southeast Asia and/or its location (perhaps the venue itself) is in southeast Asia. Otherwise, why would the speaker make a point of noting that his company is expanding into Southeast Asia to an audience interested in Central America? Thus, the speaker notes his company's previous experience in Central America but makes his presentation relevant to the audience by noting that his company is expanding into Southeast Asia. Admittedly, the speaker's statement is not grammatically clear. However, as spoken speech, it would be readily understood by the audience because they would all share the knowledge and assumption that they are there to hear about something related to Southeast Asia. In short, CONTEXT is extremely important in understanding spoken speech and can carry more weight than grammar rules. :)