Edit: backfired/more hindrance than help isn't connotatively what I'm looking for exactly (though it might be as close as I get). The implication in the former is that the action you took had the opposite effect as intended, whereas for my needs the action has to succeed in its original intent, but create problems elsewhere. As Henry Higgins observed in Pygmallion, the best grammarians are often those who learned English in school as immigrants. My parents, who were first-generation Americans in the early 20th century, learned English grammar in NYC public schools meticulously. They insisted whether or not is proper usage, period. Over time, language evolves or erodes and the rules change, which really means. An English learner asked me a question what's the difference between: on hand to hand at hand in hand And how to identify the difference and use them correctly? All these phrasal verbs are so clo. I think you would be better off using leverage as a noun. Most dictionaries define it first as a noun (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Cambridge, etc.), and only second as a verb (and dubiously at that - AH and MW both define the verb form as to provide something with leverage ). There also appears to be a raging internet argument around the use of leverage as a verb (and its general. There are be of use, be of help, be of aid, be of service, be of assistance; these idioms mean that something/someone can be used, can help, can aid, can serve, or can assist. There are also be of relevance, be of importance, which mean that something is relevant to/important for the current subject of discussion. Also, be of value, be of benefit; Based on the comments on a question on another SE site, I'm trying to define the difference between something being Dependent upon something and being reliant upon something. The sentence in You correctly define them both - and I am a little surprised that you have not spotted the slightly different circumstances in which each might be used. Though the examples you give do seem to suggest you have a grasp of the difference. The former involves taking away an existing support base - i.e. the rug. The other focuses more on not providing some help, where it might have been expected. The phrase you quoted is grammatically correct and makes use of the second meaning you listed - growth prospects made available to employees of your firm. The context usually does make the meaning clear for this word. For example, the following sentence reads horribly but the meaning of the word is easy to understand both times: To help out is a phrasal verb meaning: to assist or aid (someone), esp by sharing the burden to share the burden or cost of something with (another person) help out - be of help, as in a particular situation of need; Can you help out tonight with the dinner guests Source: Collins English Dictionary The clause that it took so long is what is often called a noun clause. Following CGEL, I'll call it a content clause because it's not actually like a noun. More specifically, it's a declarative content clause. The word that is a subordinator. Declarative content clauses marked with that are expanded and those without are bare. The construction presented above allows both expanded and bare.