It's called 'teething'.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teething

Mommy or Mom (Mummy & Mum in British English) are informal words usually used by children in place of their mother's name. In English speaking and many other cultures it's not normal for children to call their parents by their first names. In contrast sons and daughters are usually called by their first names, a nick name or a shortened version of their name ( Seb instead of Sebastian), therefore we don't really have alternative versions when addressing our own children.

Yes you can replace the active form of the verbs with the passive but as Su Ki said in business contexts it is quite common to use certain verbs in an active intransitive form even if the subject does not actually 'do' the action. In English we have a number of verbs which can be used in this way. They are called Ergative verbs and can have 3 forms 1. Active transitive: She sells flowers.2. Passive transitive: Flowers are sold everyday at the market 3. Active intransitive ergative: These flowers sell well. Here is a list of English ergative verbs http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_ergative_verbs

Actually the use of 'to know of no + noun' does exist in English. For some people it may sound a little archaic or poetic but it is grammatically correct. However, it is most commonly used with a person as the subject to mean that the speaker has never heard of or doesn't know of a particular example of or alternative to something. Therefore it means the same as 'to not know about something' A famous example of this phrase can be found in the English folk verse about the 5th of November Remember, remember! The fifth of November, The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason Why the Gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot! or the well known quote from the American author Henry David Thoreau "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestioned ability of a man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor."

Essay 3 (Please help me to revise it, many thanks!!!!)

The TAS hires around 500 staff in total in different departments; therefore, they need managers and middle-managers to assist the top leader. The transformational leadership operates efficiently in the collegial model, due to the fact that/because the leader and manager levels have common beliefs and targets. However, it may overlook the different sub-groups developing various sub-cultures in this large organisation. While the leader addresses the beliefs and values of the OC, however, staff may have different perspectives and goals towards the TAS. The managers and middle-managers have opportunities to communicate with the leader, but other employees cannot express their concepts ideas? to the top directly. Furthermore, decision-making in different groups also takes a long time with this approach.  The OC potential changes from the top leader to basic staff. Therefore, the TAS should follow a culture model which puts the beliefs and ideology in the centre of the organisation and not only emphasising focus?on management levels. Bush argues that everyone has personal an ideology and belief which impacts their behaviour and other people’s behaviour indirectly. These ideologies and values should be shared by communication within the organisation. Therefore, the culture model may cultivate the OC and increase the interpersonal relationships.

'Hostages to fortune' comes from a famous quote from the writer and philosopher Francis Bacon 'He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief.' Here it means that once you have a wife (or husband) and children or other people depending on you, you can't go off on a reckless, great adventure. Today we also use it to describe an action or statement that is risky because it could cause you trouble later. 'The Prime Minister was extremely cautious, saying nothing inflammatory and giving no hostages to fortune.' 'He was very cautious with his words and gave no hostages to fortune.'

The first sentence is in the present perfect tense and therefore describes a situation from the past until the present (throughout the speaker's life until now) and also means that the speaker still doesn't have a friend. The second sentence is in the past simple and therefore describes a situation in the past which has no connection to the present but the sentence doesn't really make sense and seems incomplete unless we are aware of the context in which it is used. For example I never had a friend when I was at school or when I was young.

'Either' normally refers to a choice between 2 things, so it depends on the context of the sentence.