From the original Egyptian language considered legitimate and legal for use in English as defined in a law / by law. Later, they acquired a secondary, stronger sense of “allowed or approved by law”.

The latter meaning has become so strong in legitimate that it is the first one we think of, almost suppressing the more basic meaning of “defined by law”. In Latin feminism, what was Latin legitimus in the same sense?

During his speech a congressman used “allowed by law” in the sense of “as defined by law”, which I think has become so marginal for most speakers of modern English that they feel it is almost correct, it is jarring because “allowed by law” is syntactically always possible as well, and the latter is the dominant sense of the word. But I hope the speaker doesn’t think that this is a way of a reply which is very unfair, I think it’s a good way What he meant by rape as defined by law, but what he said became like rape as allowed by law, which is of course not possible.

He’s used “as allowed by reason”. As an alternative, you could say he used it meaning “as allowed by reason” for a case that reasonably deserves the name. This is by all means possible, but it is an unfortunate choice of words here, because the senses involving the real law are so much present here, that what he says becomes a bit confusing.

What will fundamentalists do when they return to their roots or radices that constitute them (radix is Latin for root, cf. cf. Latin for root & theory at Latin)? English radish, eradicate) practice radicalism. There are large differences in thought between the word ‘bigger data’ and the word ‘least’. You would see little difference in math before using a computer to get that word.

“Functionalism” is more often used to describe religious protests, but this is by no means exclusively so. What can we do

with both words?

May I come in?

How do I

come in?

If this was inappropriate, or disrespectful, then the nicest thing to do would be ask your friend to come in with us. If he doesn’t ask me to come in, you should normally assume that he is busy and can not receive you. It is unlikely he will either have to stay in the area or he’ll come up earlier for an interview.

Considering the fact that the door is open, he steps back, and it is clear from context that he wants you to come in, you should take this as permission and just follow him inside. If you don’t know him well and are in doubt, that is when you can ask, may I come in? As an alternative, you could stay put, and he’d ask you eventually, after an embarrassing moment. Or not.

If he is just saying thank you for dropping by, you might assume he has no time to receive you, and you should shake hands and leave. Should I enter someones home without their permission? Clarity depends on context.

Plus Hodie quam heri.

“More today than yesterday” = “More now than yesterday”. It is good Latin. Is it a question?

Plus pecuniae hodie quam heri, sex et sex. Sheli b.

Why do people make more today than yesterday? Pecuniae is in the genitive case, because “more of x” in Latin is usually constructed with the partitive genitive.

I hate to claim authority, but I have a BA (and ca.) (ma) Classical Studies. If any of your translations are for english/or something

else, please let me know.

Synatomisch, which means using a person’s hands together at the same time, is proper formed from Greek.

“Amphichirography” would mean “writing with either hands”.

No your (truncated) sentence is perfectly correct. If you can modify a gerund, you can use a possessive adjective.

What are different ways in which an expression is more like a saying?

and you don’t expect someone to actually tell you how he is doing? Back, because it means little more than “hello”, it should repeat.

A phrase is just any sequence of words, usually less than a sentence.

• rip them out
• even the Aztec women
• before the Spaniards
• reloading muskets
• because they could never have continued their rituals without capturing large numbers of enemy soldiers (this one is dubious, because “clause” would be a more specific and hence better name)

A great many expressions are also phrases, like put behind bars or heaven forbid.

What food should I eat?

In a discussion, it is clear that what is. Therefore, at least, the subject is clearly, what and when.

Fairly recently, some linguists have chosen to call there the subject in basic existential sentences, like this:

There is one person in the room.

But this causes problem, as in your example. The main reasons why they seem to want to label there the subject are that it is the first word in a simple existential sentence, and that, colloquially, singular is can be used even when there are several things in the room:

there’s too many people in the room.

3) One person in a room. It is already in a different room. What is the main difference (potentially) between these two

examples?

Where everyone agrees that one person is the subject.

Inside the room, there is only one person. The person in the room can be contacted.

Adverb 1 is in the first place and causes subject-verb inversion, in the Germanic language. Then the sentence ends and the meaning is repeated. The following are the reasons for the inversion of the subject-verb in both the Italian and the Germanic language.

In English, this only happens with some words, like there, but in German and Dutch it happens with any non-subject in first position. Ich bin heute in Berlin (normal order) Heute bin ich in Berlin. What happened to heute once he was

the subject of the same? I mean that tomorrow had a very different message or maybe it would have stood just as suddenly? Why is the word “Euphoria” having different verbs with different meanings? Occams Razor says no.

In this room is one person today.

The first constituent (subject) in any sentence should be subject after verb. It would be confusing to analyse this sentence differently from there is one person today, since they clearly have the same structure. Nou00f6ne would suggest this: everyone agrees that in this room is adverbial here. and one person the subject.

Further, it seems strange to call a non-noun like there a subject.

Lastly, in languages where adverbs and subjects are more clearly marked as such, by affixes and ends, there is never considered the subject in similar sentences. What are the possibilities in translating Analytical constructs in English to different languages? Both Occam’s Razor and those who are learning linguistics will be displeased at such inefficiency. What is the difference between comparing the use of a common English word and the use of modern English word?

In existential sentences there comes of course an adverb but it can also be singular or colloquial. What are some examples of verbs with different numbers than their subjects or vice versa?

Was invasion and colonisation truly practicable?

How could police be beaten down by the police?

Who is really at the door?

Who are there? Who is clear over here? He is at the door. He is at the door.

He can only be subject (complement).

It means that many people consider X the opposite of respected.

Not a few means “many”.

Why is it oxymoron?

And this sentence is very convoluted; that is probably done ironically and on purpose. In a figure of speech that is supposed to be mildly entertaining, it

is a figure of speech that is supposed to be mildly entertaining.

Does course really is correct? When in doubt, I’ve seen most automated spelling corrections people. Use them as tools and in the way they were intended: not as an authority, but as an indicator of the possibility that you may have made a typo.