-
kashefian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
the explanation of the question 128 in OG states that:
with cannot be followed by an independent clause
as you can see in the following example:
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal [b]with[/b] its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Could anyone give an example of a dependent clause which is correct using "with"?
with cannot be followed by an independent clause
as you can see in the following example:
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal [b]with[/b] its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Could anyone give an example of a dependent clause which is correct using "with"?
