Is beautiful in AmE more akin to very beautiful?

If we don’t use the phrase quite, meaning something similar to not in a noticeable or measurable amount. on his site!

However using the examples from the Cambridge Dictionaries Online (which are similar to yours), I can give some more common ways we would express the same meaning of a little or a lot but not totally :

1. I’m quite tired but I can certainly walk a little further.
   I’d moved to an area with a lot of traffic today and the traffic is getting worse. (replacing quite

2. ): very, a little, a bit, somewhat, (vernacular) type of, kind of Today was quite a lot of traffic but yesterday was even busier.
   (replacing quite a lot of ): a lot of and quite a bit of, some, It was

3. quite a difficult job.
   (replacing quite a):. Very, somewhat of a, a bit of a he’s quite attractive but

4. not what I’d call gorgeous.
   (replacing quite ): very, somewhat, really, Sorting, kind of It would be quite a nuisance

5. to write to everybody.
   (replacing quite a ): a big, a little, a minor, a small These suggestions don’t constitute

a comprehensive list, but the point is that I wouldn’t often hear or see a predetereminer that is as nonspecific as quite appears to be (as in a little or a lot but not completely, per the Cambridge Dictionaries Online definition).

In many cases like these, the adjective predeterminer wouldn’t be used at all.

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?

As a native English speaker will immediately recognize this as a shorthand expression for something that is well defined elsewhere. I have read many of the articles that I viewed (some of which are in English, too) during or at the end of these. (Unless everyone involved happen to be ornithologists, in which case, it probably is a literal expression.) Can mean any of those things you think it means, but it certainly refers to one specific thing.

What do you think of being as easy as talking about in shorthand (in English) rather than refer to it as a fuller descriptive label?

As with any coined terms, anyone who doesn’t know its meaning can ask someone who does. From there I will probably begin using the shorthand themselves, if they need to refer to it at all.

If someone (sometimes mis) starts using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly meant (and by “commonly”, I don’t mean as it is literally meaning). It only becomes ambiguous when they start using the shorthand to mean something different than is commonly mean (and by “commonly”) or “amino/amino/amino/amino/extensions. In some cases, the group communicating is not communicating to the intended audience. They communicate mostly to help the audience. I see this all of the time, especially when someone wants to alter a universally defined term.

For example, in my business we talk about Spurious Free Dynamic Range. This has very precise meaning that is only superficially like its literal meaning. Usually, we can talk about it without having to resort to the specific definition. Sometimes, someone wants to talk about something that more closely resembles the literal meaning. How do they refer to it in shorthand without clashing with the universally understood meaning (within this discipline) and and without being overly wordy every time it comes up? Is that something?

In your case, unless there are people dealing with more than one activity that might be referred to as the “Oracle migration”, then its not ambiguous. How do you stop someone from being confused when they try to go online?