I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem specifically applicable to your use case with a graph.

What is your solution? Do you suggest lateral thinking? Is_in or belongs_to should be something you would program in a programming language. Where did you start?

I would never mind manoeuvers if I went straight at my thoughts. Why! In normal English: This bottle contains the

bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

France has a part in Europe. So it is a part of Europe.

Paris and Paris are France.

What is temple in the forest?

Do IT people read tech-savvy books?

We’ve seen and heard some transitive verbs which would be exactly like occupy/empty. The latter would actually be like occupy and would of course be a verb in the case of most people who don’t know it. Why we call “be +in” in idiom? But in your mind it would be transitive phrasal verb (neologism) that means:

my-in/to-see (transitive): in a graph, to connect, a mentioned node to, another mentioning node (opposite of contain ).

What is the meaning of the hyphen?

The argument here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. In any case, that would require a definition note in any formal paper (and needless to say, it might be considered anathema in other contexts).

I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem specifically applicable to your use case with a graph.

What is your solution? Do you suggest lateral thinking? Is_in or belongs_to should be something you would program in a programming language. Where did you start?

I would never mind manoeuvers if I went straight at my thoughts. Why! In normal English: This bottle contains the

bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

France has a part in Europe. So it is a part of Europe.

Paris and Paris are France.

What is temple in the forest?

Do IT people read tech-savvy books?

We’ve seen and heard some transitive verbs which would be exactly like occupy/empty. The latter would actually be like occupy and would of course be a verb in the case of most people who don’t know it. Why we call “be +in” in idiom? But in your mind it would be transitive phrasal verb (neologism) that means:

my-in/to-see (transitive): in a graph, to connect, a mentioned node to, another mentioning node (opposite of contain ).

What is the meaning of the hyphen?

The argument here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. In any case, that would require a definition note in any formal paper (and needless to say, it might be considered anathema in other contexts).

There is a concept of diglossia and there are two types of diglossia.

Who speaks two distinct languages at different times? How do they appear at different times? Usually this

term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. the Japanese, the Japanese, etc.). Usually this term is used when the same people actually speak both languages. People who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).

How can one call this particular situation (where individuals speak only a single language but don’t understand two) as a case of diglossia?

In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.

How would the situation evolve with the same language? Is this a fusion of the two, typical of what happened to Middle English? A third language (English) taking over?

What is the use of internet?

There is a concept of diglossia and there are two types of diglossia.

Who speaks two distinct languages at different times? How do they appear at different times? Usually this

term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. the Japanese, the Japanese, etc.). Usually this term is used when the same people actually speak both languages. People who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).

How can one call this particular situation (where individuals speak only a single language but don’t understand two) as a case of diglossia?

In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.

How would the situation evolve with the same language? Is this a fusion of the two, typical of what happened to Middle English? A third language (English) taking over?

What is the use of internet?

There is a concept of diglossia and there are two types of diglossia.

Who speaks two distinct languages at different times? How do they appear at different times? Usually this

term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. the Japanese, the Japanese, etc.). Usually this term is used when the same people actually speak both languages. People who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).

How can one call this particular situation (where individuals speak only a single language but don’t understand two) as a case of diglossia?

In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.

How would the situation evolve with the same language? Is this a fusion of the two, typical of what happened to Middle English? A third language (English) taking over?

What is the use of internet?

There is a concept of diglossia and there are two types of diglossia.

Who speaks two distinct languages at different times? How do they appear at different times? Usually this

term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. the Japanese, the Japanese, etc.). Usually this term is used when the same people actually speak both languages. People who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).

How can one call this particular situation (where individuals speak only a single language but don’t understand two) as a case of diglossia?

In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.

How would the situation evolve with the same language? Is this a fusion of the two, typical of what happened to Middle English? A third language (English) taking over?

What is the use of internet?

If someone has to venture an answer, even if it is sketchy. Here is the real and circumstantial evidence.

How to speak in French?

French proverbs and quotations. First, as explained

above, the proverb also exists in French Pas de Nouvelle bonnes, bonnes nouvelles.

Very little is readily available on its origin, except a (non-scholarly) page that indicates, too, its Italian origin. Can we follow the trail?

Italian: Proper Latin Form

Yes, the proverb is referred to in Italian but, interestingly, not in the form generally offered in English grammars:

Nulla nuova, buona nuova.

In Italian, it is used in its authentic Latin form.

Nilla nova, bona nova.

Moreover, the Latin proverb was sufficiently in common use in Rome, to have been carved on some monument (if someone cared to obtain the source indicated, we would know more about it).

Italian: Problem with a form quoted in English book

Problem: nulla nuova is not considered correct Italian, since the Latin meaning of “nullus” (no, as is no news) was not carried forward into modern Italian! Nullo to me?

Quota decisione u00e8 nulla.

The decision is void. Thanks for your prayers.

In that vein, a high-school grammar book of 1887, Regole ed esercizi di grammatica italiana per le scuole secondarie, had prepared a sample to protect high-school students of the country (e.g. C.E. Reyes). (This time it was published in Italy only). 87) that nullo: per

gli antichi, valse nessuno : nullo male fece (nessun male fece) ma ora vive, in tal senso, solo nel proverbio: “Nulla nova, bona nova”; Translation: Mean, for

the

Ancients, none/no one: he did no harm; but today it persists only in the proverb: “nulla nova,

a common grammar issue in Italian .

b. In other words, I can only go in. 2. Once in the Latin era, Latin-form was in widespread use. Latin was the proper one.

Why did the English people refer to Nulla Nuova as “Italian”?

What is the best explanation for vowel division in phonology? (Florentine) Italian tended to break nova + ‘O’ into diphtongs like nuova, buona. (Nizza) “O is NOT a consonant. Then… “Uncleva.”

Hence, apparently, this odd Italian form of the proverb was a direct transposition (“Italianization”) of the Latin form, in a process similar to folk etymology. How much folk etymology owes to Italian (e.g. flora etymological) speakers? This Italianized form was indeed common at some point, before being ruled out as “incorrect”), or how much it was inflated by the perception of educated foreigners, would be subject of further study…