He was walking off with my attache case filled with LV's winnings. The reference at my hand says that this sentence should be rewritten; He was walking off with my attache case which was filled with LV's winnings. Because the past participle "filled" is unclear which it modifies "case" or "he". The explanation is understandable, but at the same time it gives me a question; If it is true, the chance we can use participles is very limited. Please tell me what you think. By the way, the reference book Grammar Bible is written for native English speakers.The question was misleading. The original sentence is, He was walking off with my attache case filled with LV's winnings. And the book suggest us to rewrite to, He was walking off with my attache case which was filled with LV's winnings.

Same-time action: with doing? It sounds pretty basic but I wonder what is the most common expression to describe same-time action? I was reading a book (main clause) I had some coffee (subordinate clause) I was reading a book with having some coffee. (maybe it's the best?) I was reading a book (,) having some coffee. (I've generally used this) I was reading a book and had some coffee. (for me sounds a little bit weird to contain two different time tense in one sentence) I had some coffee while reading a book. (sounds perfect, but the main and subordinate are replaced with each other)

Language teachers who only speak their native tongues

Taking an English teacher for example, the requirement is that he knows English very well. No one expects him to speak Japanese or whatsoever fluently except when his students are super beginners. On the other hand, I wonder if they can understand students' feelings because they have never gone through a language learning process. It's like a football director who has never played football by himself. I've just asked it out of the curiosity and would like to know the general opinions. Do you find them trustworthy? Personally I know what important the most is the compatibility between a teacher and a student. So I'm glad if you think about it ruling out of the ideas like "depends on ".

 

Thanks, in advance.

I'll get to hate you. / I'll get hate you get to hate: 299,000 found on Google get hate : 319,000 found on Google While the first sentence is grammatically perfect, I'm not sure about the second one. Like "go shop", the "to" on the sentence is removal and still It's grammatically correct? Or is it the abbreviation just only for conversational speech? And in any ways, do you think I can replace the verb following the "get" with any verbs like "get know"? Thanks, in advance.

I'll set up a table / I'll have a table set up These are semantically the same in my understanding but I wonder when I should use the second type of the writing? Thanks in advance.

Do you see Japanese as educated people, especially in History?

Nationalism in this country is getting prevalent, which pissed me off as hell. They believe what we were taught is infallible as if it's the international standard. Personally honestly i do not know what is what. They use a word FACT, but I wasn't born and no way to make sure if it's a fact or not. As you've already know, I don't have a good feeling toward this country. It's not that I hate. Actually I like BUT it's like a complicated parent-child relationship.

 

So I'd just like to know how do you feel? Do you see Japanese as educated people, especially in History? I have no intention to open a controvertial discussion. I appreciate if you answer it in a calm way.

Thank you, in advance.