Hi song english, The sentence seems to make perfect sense to me. I can't see an issue with it, to be honest. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me directly www.italki.com/maddie

You may have a home office meaning that you have a room in your house that you work in. However, the context that you have described (re; "the pandemic") you would say "you are working from home" or "you work from home" as it is not your usual place of work. Not only this, the work is nothing to do with the room. You could be working in your kitchen, bedroom, etc. but it doesn't change the fact that you are working in your house/home. I hope this helped but if you have any further questions, please feel free to get in touch www.italki.com/maddie

Hello! The form of the second conditional is "If + past simple , would + infinitive" This could be the conditional clause of the second conditional as it says "If you abandoned a town house (and left it) but it has no main clause meaning from what I can see it is somewhat an unfinished conditional. If the next part of the sentence has "would" in it then, yes, it is in the second conditional, however we need more context. If you have any more questions I would be happy to answer them www.italki.com.maddie Good luck!

Hi Orangecat, A great question! To give you a short answer; yes, you can say both. The first example (re; "He would have really wanted…") you are using a past modal + perfect infinitive. The “would have” makes the answer shows the present feelings about the past hypothetical event. For example ,“I would have liked to be a singer”. In my example, I still want to be a singer, but I am not, yet the dream of being a singer is from the past. The present infinitive (re “to have seen this”) in the sentence is used to show what might have happened. In this case, it is the person seeing the thing. Together they are showing the hypothetical outcome of situation that never happened and their feelings towards it. A very difficult bit of grammar to understand! You can also say “He would have really wanted to see this” but you are taking out the present infinitive. In principle, you are saying the same thing, you are just emphasising the present feelings rather than the past outcome. However, overall, no one would think any different of it. One last comment is that, I am assuming that the YouTube video said “loved” not “love” because it doesn’t make sense to put the bare infinitive there… It is very complicated so if you have any other questions then please feel free to contact me www.italki.com/maddie. Good luck!

Hi Murphy Lee, As Brian said, it is very difficult as they are so similar and a lot of the time interchangeable. However; what you are looking at is a noun and a verb although they both seem like verbs. In the S1, the person is saying it is "necessary for the understanding of the story". They are using the noun here, not the continuous gerund (-ing) as used with verbs. The same applies to your example in S2. You can change this to "necessary to understand" and it will mean the same thing. If we take a look at S3, you are using the verb (re: “necessary to prevent such outbreaks"). Just like before, we can change the verb to be a noun and say "necessary for the prevention of such outbreaks" and it will mean the same thing. In S4, " to ensure" cannot switch to be a noun as easily but you could say something like "“necessary for the certainty that the powers are used properly." but that is a little unnatural and I would use "to ensure" instead. Overall, there is no actually difference in the meaning. You were just confused because the nouns look like continuous verbs. It's a common issue in English so I wouldn't worry about it too much! If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch www.italki.com/maddie.

Hi Gloria96, Can we have a little more context? I'm confused about what you're talking about making it difficult to correct. Feel free to ask me directly www.italki.com/maddie Thanks!