<p>Hey, I'm an international and I didn't find clear grammatical explanations for the specific cases I've encountered.
I may sound silly, Sorry</p>
<p>1) Is it redundant to use "own" with an "'s"
Ex: Much of his Jack's staff was replaced with Harry's own staff.
In my native language, the equivalent of "own" can be use to highlight the possession ?</p>
<p>2) The present perfect in an AND-structure sentence.
Ex: He has found a dog and has considered it as a friend (It's so stupid...)
Should I write the second "has"</p>
<p>3) A special case that can be broadened
Ex: He wants to be the leader of this party whereas he cannot even be his own leader
Add or not add "leader" that's the question.</p>
<p>If any of them sound*s* already bad, please keep me informed.
PS: can you explain me when not to write an "s" with the 3th person of singular.</p>
<ol>
<li>NOTE: “His” should be omitted before “Jack’s”.</li>
</ol>
<p>The addition of “own” is redundant in this case. “Own” as an adjective is generally used after possessive pronouns like “his” or “her”. So you would use “own” when the possession is affecting its possessor (in this case, Harry), but not when it is affecting another individual or the possessions of another individual (in this case, Jack and his staff).</p>
<ol>
<li>NOTE: “As a friend” should be changed to “to be a friend” or simply “a friend”.</li>
</ol>
<p>To the best of my knowledge, it could be done with or without the second “has”. Excluding the “has” would make the sentence more concise, but not necessarily any more grammatically correct.</p>
<ol>
<li>It’s perfectly correct to add “leader” at the end of the sentence. It eliminates ambiguity to the reader. If a second “leader” were not added at the end of the sentence and it was simply left as “his own.”, it could be interpreted as “his own leader of this party” since the leader of the party was the last leader referred to. This would be nonsensical, so the addition of “leader” makes it clear that the message is that he cannot be the leader of himself.</li>
</ol>
<p>P.S.: You never add a plural “s” to refer to a singular noun. A singular noun or pronoun may perform an action in the present; and that action would end with an “s”, but this is not a plural “s”. For example: “He stops his car.” </p>
<p>If a plural noun or pronoun is performing an action in the present, the “s” is dropped. For example: “They stop their cars.” In the case of your sentence, “any” is considered to be an adjective pronoun describing the plural “them”. Therefore, any action “them” performs in the present will not feature an ending “s”. Remember that “sound(s)” in your sentence is used as a verb, not a noun. Therefore, “sound” would be correct to use.</p>
<p>1) NOTE: I knew it that his and 's were not compatible (it was a typo but thanks though ;))</p>
<p>2) “As a friend” should be changed to “to be a friend” or simply “a friend”
Is it true for formal writing ? I mean, which one sounds better in an essay?</p>
<p>3) Ok but I was not talking about the use of simple present (too easy :))Nevertheless, I should have been more accurate.
I’ve once read that “s” had to be removed after an “If” (subjonctive)
It’s difficult to me because in my native language there’s an alloted tense for this case.
Can you explain me more precisely about it?</p>
<p>In the friend sentence, you do not need the “to be” since it is understood to be there if you just put a friend, but there is no harm putting it in either. However, it is difficult to understand the sentence with two “has” and how the sentence should be written really depends on what you are trying to convey:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If you mean that in the past he once found a dog and considered it a friend, it should be “He found a dog and considered it a friend.”</p></li>
<li><p>If you mean in the past he found a dog, still has it, and believes it a friend, it should be “He found a dog and considers it a friend.”</p></li>
<li><p>If you mean he just recently found a dog, was probably looking for one, and believes it a friend: “He has found a dog and considers it a friend.”</p></li>
<li><p>To say “He has found a dog and has considered it a friend” implies he just recently found the dog, considered it a friend for a moment and now no longer considers it a friend, which I am fairly certain is not what you were trying to convey. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In your third sentence “whereas” is not used properly. Whereas is used to compare things not to question their validity. For example: “Some politicans always want to raise taxes, whereas others always want to lower them.” Also, whereas actually isn’t even used that much in common speech. In your sentence, you are not comparing two things but adding one to raise a question as to the validity of the first one. The word you should be using is “but.”</p>
<p>As to the “If” phrase and use of an s at end of “sound,” there is no rule about using an s in a verb after an if. The subjective mood “if” phrase rule refers to using the word “were” with a singular noun rather than “was” even though were is usually preceded by a plural noun otherwise. When the “if” phrase is referring to conjecture (the subjective mood) you will use were instead of was; example: “If I were rich, I would own an island.”</p>
<p>I]Should “the” preceed institutions. I think examples will be more representative.
“His thought stemmed from (the) communism.”
I personnally would remove the “the” but I can’t vouch for this assumption
Other examples:
Throughout his career, he harshly debunked (the) communism.
He embodies (the) communism and especially his leader - Stalin. </p>
<p>Of course I would like to know if this case can be broadened to all institutions.</p>
<p>II] "Jack had even turn the staff against Joe, who goes on strike to demand Jack’s reinstatement, previously fired</p>
<p>Is it obvious that “who” is referring to the staff? Can it be ambiguous anyway?</p>
<p>Communism, socialism or similar isms are not usually thought of as institutions but instead political or social theories or systems. The institution (the organization) would be the communist party, socialist party or similar. Generally, you do not use an article such as the before an ism word but you cannot say that never occurs. Whether you will find one before an actual institution will depend on what is being referred to and how it is used in the sentence…</p>
<p>In your Jack and Joe sentence, the who phrase could leave confusion as to whom it is referring in the sentence and when that occurs it should be avoided. Also, in your sentence, turn would need to be turned and, from what it appears you are try to say, the present tense also cannot apply to the who phrase since it is something in the past that ended in the past before Jack turned the staff and thus better to say “who had gone” and if you do that the who phrase might become clearer as to whom it is referring. Also, “previously fired” seems to be referring to nothing. I think what you are trying to say is “Jack had even turned the staff against Joe, who had previously gone on strike to demand Jack’s reinstatement when Jack was fired.”</p>