Hi, Ardith Hinton -> Alexander Koryagin!
I read your message from  24.06.2018 16:06
about Trump's 2019 budget.

 ak>> Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be" could be
 ak>> omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)

 AH> Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that there was a car
 AH> hanging from the underside of the Granville Street Bridge." The
 AH> repetition of "was" in such cases would sound unnecessary at best
 AH> to many native speakers of English. One must be careful, however,
 AH> not to read too much into what one has been told about xxx and/or
 AH> (to) assume (that) the same applies to yyy.... :-)

I was trying to hide my lapse behind the joke. :)

 AS>> I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...
 ak>> It is also correct, I think.

 AH> While I see a typo in "opinion", I'm content with the grammar. ;-)

Anton prefers errors instead of a spell checker. ;)

 AS>> I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)

 ak>> Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided? (no "to
 ak>> be" again before "provided").

 AH> I'd be more inclined to call it a document, but in this part of the
 AH> world some proposed legislation could easily fill a book... [wry
 AH> grin].

 AH> Now, as for the grammar... "I provided" is correct. You could have
 AH> said "which I provided", but "which" is optional in such
 AH> situations. The only reason I can think of offhand for using "to
 AH> be" with a transitive verb such as "provide" is that
you are using

As for "no to be" it was a senseless addition from my side.
Probably, I was sleepy. And I was also too lazy to write another message
with an explanation of another lapse of mine. ;)


Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox