If you ask someone "level with me", you are implying they are lying and you're asking instead for honesty. If someone says "I'll level with you" or "I will level with you" or "I'll be level with you", they are telling you they are being honest where they would normally lie. Possibly due to shame, or maybe because it would be hard for you to hear the truth. Usually though, in the case that it is hard to hear the truth (a serious situation, maybe someone has died, or it's a doctor telling you that you have cancer), many people avoid this idiom and would simply say, "I'm going to be honest with you..." or "I have some terrible news..." or something like that. In a serious situation, a person may also say, "I'll be straight with you." which is similar to "I'll be level with you." except it has to do with not trying to make the news easier to hear (which is usually called "beating around the bush") rather than to do with honesty/dishonesty. "I will level with you, I don't have a great education." (person applying for a job) "I will level with you, I used to be an alcoholic." (making a new friend / on a date) "I will level with you, the next few days are going to be stressful." (a boss talking to employees) "I will be honest with you, your test results don't look good." (doctor to patient) "I will just come right out and say it, your test results don't look good." "I'll be straight with you, your test results don't look good." -- could also be "I will level with you..." but it seems a little too informal, unless the doctor knows the patient well. As Gary pointed out, people often use these kinds of phrases when they are actually lying and are trying to give you the impression of honestly or special information. "I will level with you..." "Let me tell you the truth..." "Honestly, ..." "Ok, so the truth is, ..." "I swear to God..." These are all commonly found at the beginning of lies.

Yes. They are nearly the same. "have been giving" just further implies that it is continuing to happen.

The correct spelling is "raining" but yes, that would work but isn't what you'd usually say. You could also change it to "It's probably going to be raining tomorrow morning." or "It will probably rain..." or "It will rain..." The problem with "It will rain" or "it will be raining" is you're predicting the weather with certainty. So although it's grammatically correct, it's logically wrong. You should say "It will" for things that are certain or almost certain. "It will be Friday tomorrow." "You will be cold on your way to school if it is raining in the morning." "In the desert, it will be hot in the middle of the day." "It will probably rain tomorrow." "You should close the window in case it rains over night." "The weather forecast is calling for rain in the morning." "It's getting cloudy out. I think it's going to rain soon." "I'll be ready for the game tomorrow, but it will probably be raining in the morning."

For number 2), "destination" is not the right word here since it would imply a place. You probably want to use the word "option". Anyway, you want to place the number as a counter of what it's quantifying. So, if there are 29,665 UK graduates, and some of them are choosing "further study", then in sentence 1) you'd probably put it between "these" and "UK Graduates" making "these (29,665) UK graduates". If 29,665 is the number that are choosing further study, then 3) works fine, or you could use 1) and put it between "number" and "of", making "The largest number (29,665) of these UK...". I think that works best because you're saying "the largest number" and then giving that actual number as a detail in parenthesis.

I agree with Robert and Grace, you can't change it without changing the meaning or at least the feeling of the utterance. Usually if you were to use "had" in that way, it would be to contrast another part of the story, or because you no longer know them. For example, if you added "had" before "had dinner" in the first sentence, it would have the exact same effect. It looks a little strange but this pattern often happens. "Last night, I had had dinner with two friends but I stopped for a snack on the way home anyway." This happens because you're telling a story where, in the story itself, you had eaten dinner in the past. The story is in the past (last night on the way home, after dinner) but dinner took place in the past, at the time of the story. "to have dinner" and "to have known [a person]" seem similar but they aren't the same. "I had dinner" means "I ate dinner" but "I had known both of them for a long time" means "I knew both of them for a long time but stopped knowing them sometime after the start of the story and before now". The story will usually involve why you no longer know them, especially in this case, since it was just last night. (What happened between last night and now that you no longer know them?). "I remember, when I was ten, that rainy day at the park with my best friend Jenny, we had known each other since we were five." (as an adult, you may no longer know each other) "My sister and I had been very close until she moved away for school." "My sister and I have been very close all our lives." "We had known each other a long time but he still ignored me in the hallways." (part of a story about the past) "We have known each other a long time but he still ignores me in the hallways." (a description of a daily situation) "My friend had given me his best advice and I tried to follow it, but I wasn't able to succeed." (story in the past) "My friend has given me his best advice and I'm trying to follow it." (ongoing story)

Hi chappyrick, I've actually thought about producing these kinds of transcripts because I came across some for another language I was learning and found it extremely helpful. For example, an interviewer asked like 20 people, "What time is it?", and basically got 20 different responses (other than the time being different). For example, one person would say, "Oh, right now, it's about 5 o'clock." and another would say "5 after 5" and another would say, "It's 5 and 3 minutes". I haven't seen anything like this for English (though I haven't looked much since I'm a native speaker) and I want to make some to help other people like you out. So I'd like to get some information from you as to what kind of situations you would find the most useful. If you want, you could send me a private message if you're interested in helping me out. And of course, if I do make them, you'd be the first person I'd tell! Also, if you happen to come across something that already exists, maybe you could let me know. Thanks!

The first one would be better as, "Some pages are missing from this book." "in this book" is correct and understandable, but that expression usually means within the content of the book. As in, "Some ideas are missing in this book." ("In this book, some things aren't explained.") Because the pages are missing, they aren't "in" the book anymore, even in a physical sense. They are missing "from" (more common) our "out of" (less common) it. "You tore some pages out of my book." is perfect. You could also say "from" but "out of" is more common in this case. "Don't annoy me crying" and "Don't make me mad crying" and wrong and both have the same issue so I'll talk about the first but it applies to both. You need a preposition for it to be a proper sentence. And even if you're not worried about proper, you still need it for clarity. Because "Don't annoy me crying" could mean "Don't annoy me, crying." As in you're talking to yourself or your emotional outburst and telling it not to annoy you. Let's say your stomach was grumbling, you might say, "Ah, be quiet, don't annoy me stomach!" which is kind of how your example sounds. So all of the following would be correct and convey the meaning you want but have slight subtleties that I'll put in brackets: "Don't annoy me with crying." (because I'm annoyed when people cry, which is you in this case) "Don't annoy me with your crying." (because I'm annoyed when you cry) "Don't annoy me with that crying." (same as above, but implies the person being spoken to is crying right now) "Don't annoy me by crying." (somewhat implies the person is about to start crying but they may have already started) "Don't annoy me by starting to cry." (more clear that the person doesn't want the other person to start crying) You can replace "Don't annoy me..." with "Don't make me mad..." for all of those, which just changes the emotional response from annoyance to anger.

Your third sentence is grammatically correct, but I'm assuming it doesn't have your intended meaning. You probably mean "We won't be able to get an opportunity like this again." Because you're talking about the future, if you use the present tense "can't" ("cannot"), the "can't" doesn't refer to the future but to right now. Specifically, in this case, it changes the meaning of "can't" from the usual meaning "not able to" to a more hyperbolic meaning "it would have grave consequences". That is, "If I want X, I can't do/have Y." "I can't give that guy my phone number." (because he seems bad and might track me down and hurt me) "I can't give up." (because then I'd be a quitter) "I can't say no to ice cream." (because I love eating it, so I'm not going to say no even though I could) vs. "I can't tie my shoes." (because I don't know how, I literally don't have the ability) EX1 "I can't let my daughter go to that party on Saturday." EX2 "I won't let me daughter go to that party on Saturday." EX1 means if the parent let's the daughter go to the party, something bad will probably happen, and the parent doesn't want to feel responsible. It basically means by letting her go, she would be a bad parent. eg. "If I want to be a proper parent (in general), I can't let my daughter do these kinds of things." EX2 means when Saturday comes, the daughter will not be allowed to go (by the parent) because "won't" is future tense, she is saying something that she will do (or not do in this case) in the future. So, using "can't" in your example means something like, "If we get an opportunity like this again, it would be devastating." Opportunities are usually good, so the listener would probably understand that's not the intended meaning. However, a speaker could mean don't want any more opportunities because they (we) keep messing them up and it's becoming stressful. So you want to use, "We won't get an..." or "We won't have an..." or "We won't be able to get an..."