Often, but not always. Reflective -> reflektierend. Narrative -> Erzaehlung/erzaehlerisch. Inquisitive -> neugierig. Vindictive -> rachsuechtig. Pensive -> nachdenklich. Adhesive -> Klebstoff/klebend. Decisive -> entsheidend. Evasive -> ausweichend. Talkative -> gespraechig. I knew a few of these, but I looked up a few more. However, I could not remember, or find, any German -iv words that do not have an English -ive counterpart. Though the meaning is often a bit different. Effectiv and effective definitely don't always mean the same thing!

I agree with everyone else. A usage of "for" in this case could be done as follows: "For native English speakers, do the sentences below sound natural?" The reason this works is it serves as a weird sort of introductory clause instead of a prepositional phrase modifying the verb "sound". "For [noun],..." is a general easy way to introduce a focal point (if not the subject) of a sentence, or even a paragraph. If someone asked, "Do people like peanut butter and jelly?" I could answer, "For me, peanut butter and jelly is the most delicious food imaginable. And it is super healthy, too!." In this case, both "PB&J is the most delicious food imaginable." and "And it is super healthy, too!" are both understood to be modified by "For me". If I said, "PB&J is the most delicious food imaginable to me. And it is super healthy, too!", the prepositional phrase "to me" only modifies "is the most delicious food imaginable", so "And it is super healthy, too" is presumably a generalized statement of presumed fact. That the statement is completely true is irrelevant.

In my opinion,economy should be taught. Why is it not included? The first reason is there are not many people who can teach. Some people have knowledge to share , but they don’t want to do because if they share the idea, people would follow, demand would boost up and they have to change the way to earn money. Additionally they know what they have to spend time to. Actually it is not for education. The second reason is that if people get proper education, some companies could go bankrupt. They just advertise something good for people, but if you have knowledge, you can analyze and search based on proper information. On the other hand, if people have proper knowledge, some doubtful companies would have gone. Paragraph beginning, “The second reason…” “They advertise [that] something [is] good for people, but, if [people] have knowledge, [they] can…” This does not seem to be a separate reason, but a continuation of the previous reason of guarding the information so they can continue the status quo. I might suggest the following: “A population adequately educated in economics could cause some companies to go bankrupt. If they advertise that something is good for people, but the people use economics to analyze and properly research the data in the advertisement, the company could lose money.” *** Paragraph beginning: “On the other hand…” “...people have proper [economic] knowledge, some [dubious] companies would (might?) (either “be gone” or, stronger, “close their doors”).” This does not seem to be “on the other hand” (contradictory to the previous point), but a continuation of it. Instead of starting a short, new paragraph, you could append a sentence onto the last paragraph: “A public educated in economics could lead to the closure of more dubious companies.” Great job!

In my opinion,economy should be taught. Why is it not included? The first reason is there are not many people who can teach. Some people have knowledge to share , but they don’t want to do because if they share the idea, people would follow, demand would boost up and they have to change the way to earn money. Additionally they know what they have to spend time to. Actually it is not for education. The second reason is that if people get proper education, some companies could go bankrupt. They just advertise something good for people, but if you have knowledge, you can analyze and search based on proper information. On the other hand, if people have proper knowledge, some doubtful companies would have gone. 1st sentence: Here, I recommend either simply answering the original question with, “Economics, in my opinion,” or by restating the question: “In my opinion, economics is the one thing that should be taught in school, but isn’t. *** Paragraph beginning “The first reason…”: This paragraph has two different arguments: #1 – There are not many teachers educated in economics. #2 – People who are educated in economics want to guard the information. These should be divided. “...people who can teach [it].” “...don’t want [to, because,…]” “...people would follow [their advice], [boosting demand], and they [would] have to change the way [they] earn money.” The 2nd sentence here is a bit of a run-on. It could be rephrased as follows: “The people who do have the knowledge avoid passing it on. They fear that people following their advice will boost demand (do you mean boost competition?) and force them to change how they earn money. Last sentence in that paragraph: “Additionally” means you want to add something different to support your case. “Furthermore” continues developing your previous evidence. Maybe, “Furthermore, they know what to spend time on, and it is not education. It’s advertisement.” This will lead into your next statement about marketing.

In my opinion,economy should be taught. [Here, I recommend either simply answering the original question with, “Economics, in my opinion,” or by restating the question: “In my opinion, economics is the one thing that should be taught in school, but isn’t."] Why is it not included? The first reason is there are not many people who can teach [it]. Some people have knowledge to share, but [they don’t want to, because,] if they share the idea, people would follow [their advice], [boosting demand,] and they [would] have to change the way [they] earned money. [This paragraph has two different arguments: #1 – There are not many teachers educated in economics. #2 – People who are educated in economics want to guard the information. These should be divided.] [The 2nd sentence here is a bit of a run-on. It could be rephrased as follows: “The people who do have the knowledge avoid passing it on. They fear that people following their advice will boost demand (do you mean boost competition?) and force them to change how they earn money."] Additionally they know what they have to spend time to. Actually it is not for education. [“Additionally” means you want to add something different to support your case. “Furthermore” continues developing your previous evidence. Maybe, “Furthermore, they know what to spend time on, and it is not education. It’s advertisement.” This will lead into your next statement about marketing.] [I will finish my analysis in the following message.]

Today is overcast. After lunch, my dad and I made an appointment together to renew my passport. However, filling out the required documents proved to be a complex process. Although those forms were in English, I struggled to understand most of the DS11 form. For instance, they used terms like "surname" and "given name" instead of "first name" and "last name". No one had ever taught me that before. Additionally, I encountered puzzling requirements such as "spouse," "gender X," "submitting fees," "zip code," "consulate general" instead of "embassy," and being "in care of my mom." Anyhow, it has highlighted that my English isn't good enough to fill out my own forms. I need to work harder on learning it. This is pretty solid! If I could nitpick at all, I would recommend the following changes: "Although it was in English, I struggled to understand most of the DS11 form." Saying "forms" is redundant in this case. Also English uses the definite article "the" more often than determiners like "those", which end up functioning as a way to add stress to a noun. The ordering of your words is likely just due to casual writing, but, if you were unaware, "surname" is last name and "given name" is first name. A lot of English speakers don't even know that, by-the-by.

I agree with both of the other answers: "don't have" being a common negation of "to have", while "haven't" is more commonly a negation of the auxiliary verb. while haven't can also be a negation of the transitive verb ("I haven't any money"), I think it is fair to say that that usage is dead in the United States. I still hear folks from the UK, Ireland and India use it. I do not hear it from Canadians. I do not know about other big English speaking hubs.

in reality, you could probably make a real word by adding "-ness" to any word, -ness meaning "the essence of...". and really, like in every other language, it's a real word if you use it and people understand you without an explanation. though i'm not aware of a specific lgbtq reference