Her lips and chin were gentle and firm, and when she put on a light green suit, she seemed to be revived by spring.
Come in Come alive is the past participle of come. As an adjective, spring has come back to life. If it is changed to alive, it means that she seems to have come back to life in spring. Although there is such a language in Chinese, it does not conform to the logic of English.
In my opinion, coming alive can also be used as an adjective, but the meaning is different from the past participle, one is active and the other is passive. Is that so? Still not an adjective?
(Attachment: Adjectives can be used as attributive, object complement, predicative ... so there is no special distinction)
The second sentence: this will be a friendship, for which I have always been grateful and will always be grateful.
1.ever can be translated as forever, which is common in poetry and negative tone. For example, will never ever can be translated as never.
Because there is no concept of tense in Chinese, adverbials are used to explain time. I was grateful and must be grateful in the future. In fact, the meaning includes the past perfect tense and the past future tense, so the literal translation should be that this used to be a friendship, and I have always been and will always be grateful. But it can be translated into English for the sake of beautiful language.
A friendship I have always been grateful for and will always be grateful for. "
In addition, I don't know if this sentence is subjunctive, so "a friendship that I have always been grateful for and will always be grateful for" is not appropriate, but should be "this could have been a friendship that I have always been grateful for and will always be grateful for."
I mean, if you buckle it carefully, this sentence is the past future tense, which means that if you put it in the past, it may (will) become ... it may imply that it is not the present. For example, in some movies, the police said "we can be thieves and friends of Grand Theft Auto", implying that we must do so ... because if it is normal, This was can be directly used in the text stated in the past tense, and This is can be used in the text stated in the present tense, and it should be used according to the following text. There is no need to say that this will be. I think since this will be used, there should be empty meaning in it, but I don't know if the author wrote it on purpose.
I don't know if it's right, please correct me.