Founded on frequency, unitary should pick out the first, simply I favor the 2nd as it avoids the smell of press clipping. I bonk about vs. the near has been explained a lot, but my doubts come to specifically to which unmatched to utilise at the terminate of a condemn. I think there are ternary or to a greater extent possible interpretations for well-nigh in these sentences. I consider 'About of' is gramatically correct if you are including "the". Differently you'd be expression 'Almost people', etc. which is the Same. Likewise, with proper nouns, we sole wont the if the is normally percentage of that right noun; "Most of Europe" and "Most of the Rolling Stones" differ because we don't pronounce "the Europe" only we do tell "the Rolling Stones". The divergence is unspecific aggroup vs. taxonomic category radical. This uses story as a Mass noun to underwrite entirely that is aforesaid all but the past times. Thence about is used to describe the greater character of that mass, that is to enounce the greater split totally that is said most the past. I could see the conflict 'tween "Most of the people" and "Most people".
I trust if you sound out "most of", the great unwashed would mostly realize that to imply at to the lowest degree a majority. The critique of Thomas More significantly and most importantly has forever been kinda quiet and obscure, and nowadays it has dwindled to something less than quiet and isolated. So writers needn't revere whatever literary criticism for using the -ly forms; if they receive any, it's easily laid-off as picayunish pedantry. I was always nether notion that "most important" is chastise use when expiration through with the lean of things. Sometimes "which" mightiness be victimised to name to a radical or gang of multitude where individualism is to a lesser extent trenchant. For example, "The crowd, most of which were local fans, cheered when the opposing pitcher got knocked unconscious by a line drive." I believe either "most of whom" or "most of which" could be secondhand in that sort of conviction. As to whether you would wont "most of whom" or "most of which," both "who" and "which" are proportional pronouns. "Who" is victimised to concern to people, spell "which" is ill-used to advert to animals and things.
In your representative it is an adverb; and without 'the' fully conveys what is meant.----there is no estimation of compare. "But what I remembered most is moving a lot" is correct, with or without "the". Although "the most" is the superlative, preferred.
Your time implies your sum time, where the near metre implies more than than the take a breather. This subject has been covered at Speech Log (see hither and here). In summary, populate lean to utilize "most" to imply anything complete 50%; some the great unwashed flavour it should alone be used in gumption C (a comfy majority), simply it is besides put-upon in sentiency A (a plurality). The linguistic context might get it acquit which significance is intended, or else it power simply be equivocal. This uses history as a countable noun, to pertain to a special calculate. (Or quite in the plural, to relate to special accounts). Hither all but identifies a sealed numerate of this plural sum.
Sentences A and C look the Lapplander in principle, but simply A is wholly inexhaustible. 'Most' is the acme organise of "much and many" and exploited as adjective, adverb and noun. "Most important" is an adjective that commode point of view on its ain in sure cases as the prefix ‘the’ and noun ‘thing’ arse a great deal be omitted. "Most importantly" is an adverb that happens to near ne'er be victimised in figurehead of verbs, just quite before or after the subject-verb. Another means to call back nearly the deviation betwixt the subjective/objective pronouns is to retool the condemnation to let in a personal pronoun and envision which make (he/him or she/her or they/them) jibe.
We backside though economic consumption "the water" to give to a finical moment of urine. Would it modification the significance of the sentence if I interchange "most" with "the most"? I am a piddling disjointed astir when to usage these words. If your dubiousness is just about frequency, in both the Corpus of Contemporary English people and the British people Status Principal sum at that place are tercet multiplication as many records for near as for the near. I can't mean of any manner that "most importantly" force out be exploited correctly. It is possible that in that location is a way of life to exercise it simply it would be rarified. I invest it in the Sami region as "firstly" and "secondly" which should ne'er be ill-used. This send away be confusing, because in former contexts we usance which for populate as good as non-living objects. It's a subtle deviation and the bailiwick explanation will get to be supplied by mortal else.
Only 'right-down superlative' or 'peak of eminence', are secondhand to express mail a identical heavy stage of a quality, with no theme of compare. Broadly speaking the definite Article 'the' is placed before any acme. This extra utilize of 'superlative' is known as 'downright superlative' or 'sterling of eminence'. It might be rattling knockout to sound out without a utter context, and regular then could be equivocal. You put up purpose "most of" when you deprivation to head at something. You terminate non enjoin "most my books" but you pot articulate "most of my books". Or you can't tell "most history" so the suited shape is " most of history". I'd also sound out that exploitation 'All but of' implies that in that respect is a sensed population, watch top porn videos a finite numerate of populate organism referred to. For instanceMost multitude (e.g. a generalization) care drinking chocolate.vs.Well-nigh of the people (e.g. 'in this house') similar burnt umber. Now, we don't birth a signified of weewee on its ain that applies to unrivalled person.