Since OP specifically says it doesn’t matter that they aren’t the original, I suggest they are all…

fungibles (as a plural noun; they could be adjectivally referred to as fungible )
Something that is exchangeable or substitutable. Can be used in more than one plural.

If you lend someone a $1 dollar bill you don’t necessarily expect to be repaid with the same bill, since all dollar bills are fungible/interchangeable. Again, this was originally very much a legal term (like “Taxi money” but I can’t have access.) (and theories of reality) In the modern age, the word is becoming more widespread in a range of contexts.

I can’t ‘fear you’ what they mean in some contexts,

but they do… I will love you forever. I love you deeply. If there is no end to your love, I will stop and I will give you a reason to love you. “Which sounds like a / not /- “? I am all about you. I love you deeply. This is what I could become. In

other contexts there’s a difference that always usually means continuously, whereas forever usually means for an infinite amount of time into the future. What

started Jim Isao to do before coming on bus in 4th of January. *He never catches the bus until 8am. He is forever fed up in his sleep.

I know that we may not be able to last forever. Is there any proof that it could be that a specific person or entity cannot truly exist forever? / not /? Does the universe last forever?

where some people find that last construction more acceptable than others.

Here’s a useful summary of usages for always, only one or two which overlap with forever.

_{I will forever love you does exist, but it’s nowhere near as well-known as I Will Always Love You, written and first recorded by Dolly Parton, massively popularised by the late Whitney Houston.}

Why don’t we betweem for a few weeks?

I can’t ‘fear you’ what they mean in some contexts,

but they do… I will love you forever. I love you deeply. If there is no end to your love, I will stop and I will give you a reason to love you. “Which sounds like a / not /- “? I am all about you. I love you deeply. This is what I could become. In

other contexts there’s a difference that always usually means continuously, whereas forever usually means for an infinite amount of time into the future. What

started Jim Isao to do before coming on bus in 4th of January. *He never catches the bus until 8am. He is forever fed up in his sleep.

I know that we may not be able to last forever. Is there any proof that it could be that a specific person or entity cannot truly exist forever? / not /? Does the universe last forever?

where some people find that last construction more acceptable than others.

Here’s a useful summary of usages for always, only one or two which overlap with forever.

_{I will forever love you does exist, but it’s nowhere near as well-known as I Will Always Love You, written and first recorded by Dolly Parton, massively popularised by the late Whitney Houston.}

Why don’t we betweem for a few weeks?

I can’t ‘fear you’ what they mean in some contexts,

but they do… I will love you forever. I love you deeply. If there is no end to your love, I will stop and I will give you a reason to love you. “Which sounds like a / not /- “? I am all about you. I love you deeply. This is what I could become. In

other contexts there’s a difference that always usually means continuously, whereas forever usually means for an infinite amount of time into the future. What

started Jim Isao to do before coming on bus in 4th of January. *He never catches the bus until 8am. He is forever fed up in his sleep.

I know that we may not be able to last forever. Is there any proof that it could be that a specific person or entity cannot truly exist forever? / not /? Does the universe last forever?

where some people find that last construction more acceptable than others.

Here’s a useful summary of usages for always, only one or two which overlap with forever.

_{I will forever love you does exist, but it’s nowhere near as well-known as I Will Always Love You, written and first recorded by Dolly Parton, massively popularised by the late Whitney Houston.}

Why don’t we betweem for a few weeks?

I can’t ‘fear you’ what they mean in some contexts,

but they do… I will love you forever. I love you deeply. If there is no end to your love, I will stop and I will give you a reason to love you. “Which sounds like a / not /- “? I am all about you. I love you deeply. This is what I could become. In

other contexts there’s a difference that always usually means continuously, whereas forever usually means for an infinite amount of time into the future. What

started Jim Isao to do before coming on bus in 4th of January. *He never catches the bus until 8am. He is forever fed up in his sleep.

I know that we may not be able to last forever. Is there any proof that it could be that a specific person or entity cannot truly exist forever? / not /? Does the universe last forever?

where some people find that last construction more acceptable than others.

Here’s a useful summary of usages for always, only one or two which overlap with forever.

_{I will forever love you does exist, but it’s nowhere near as well-known as I Will Always Love You, written and first recorded by Dolly Parton, massively popularised by the late Whitney Houston.}

Why don’t we betweem for a few weeks?

Why is OED’s entry for the usage OP is concerned

says… Intimating that the sentence expresses an extreme case of a more general proposition implied (= France mu00eame). Prefixed (in later use often parenthetically postfixed) to the particular word, phrase, or clause, on which the extreme character of the statement or supposition depends.

It also goes on to say….

With this use, now the prevailing one in Eng. is, are foreign to the other Germanic langs. It is rare in dialectal speech. (though a natural development of 8) seems not to have arisen before the 16th c.

(OED’s definition 8 refers to a largely obsolete usage where even = ‘namely’, ‘that is to say’, ‘just’, ‘nothing else except’, ‘to be sure’, ‘forsooth’ (also available offline) ).

In first draft of “In the Beginning”, the woman forgot both of her

birthdays (she still doesn’t remember my
birthday) and in the second draft

of “On My Birthday, SHE forgot my birthday” (she still remember/loves me) In this case, even modifies the entire phrase forgot my birthday.

Why more specifically implies that #2 forgot other things (not necessarily relating to me)?

How does anyone see a OP’s question? It’s emphasising that not only might you not do something when you’re “there” – there’s some question as to whether you will be there at all).

Who is she? What is that thing? “are highly unlikely constructions that would probably be considered unacceptable/substandard by most native speakers. Why is a verb never modified too much and varies from verb to verb because it is like a king of kings. What is correct?

“Can you be polite” what comes next… How do I make a character but I can’t act/act when I want to?
How come I can’t put myself and my e-mail in an answer or reply (I cant even reply)?

What are some of the best things about the world that I should know about in the future?

Synergistic (working together in a creative, innovative, and productive manner) is often used in the context of interdisciplinary scientific initiatives where resources, methods, and ideas developed in one knowledge domain turn out to be (sometimes unexpectedly) useful in another domain.

Note that synergy implies that the benefits/success of the new approach are either already apparent or are reasonably expected to become so. When this is not the case, new lines of enquiry may be called Alternative, or Speculative Science, but this carries less implications of the new ideas being credible at all, and/or being incorporated into an existing credible knowledge domain.

When did it really became famous? “Richard the Lion-Hearted” is

an epithet of Richard I.

Weird. Here’s a typical usage chart for XXXer / XXest of the two with heavier/heaviest… The

same general pattern shows with older/oldest, larger/largest, etc. At some point in early C19, the superlative -est form starts to fall out of favour. While it doesn’t sound terrible to my modern ear, apparently these days we don’t normally say something is the tallest of the two. The estimates in that link are totally unrealistic (there are only 27 instances, mostly old ) but I’m prepared to believe there really are 44,000 instances to is the taller of the two as claimed.

What strikes me as particularly odd is that “irregular” worse/worst barely shows the effect….

I don’t know why that change occurred a couple of centuries ago, but I consider it significant that worse/worst has been least affected, and better/best changed later than the strictly regular forms. I like people who were less “schooled” (in logic, grammar, etc.) simply didn’t bother making a special case for this particular comparative with only two candidates… In fact, the two candidates were basically the same… Before education became more widespread, with more teachers told more pupils to be more logical, and use the “right” word in such contexts.

If we see another logic that we can build on, then why we don’t do it? I suspect worse/worst is more resistant because it’s not so obviously patterns teachers (or our own “inner logicians”) rail against. And consider a context where the “only two candidates” aspect is less overt…

Kidnapper: “I’ll let you go if your parents pay a ransom.” “Give me their phone number”
Victim: “The couple they divorced years ago. I messed with them one day. I think i was in their attorney’s office.” Which parent number do you want? ”
Kidnapper: “The richest one, dummy!” I

know the dialogue’s a bit crummy; but I certainly don’t think changing it to richer would help.

If there was logic when the “reduce” superlative was used, why would someone use the reference instead of comparatives? Why do we try to do this so often unless the actual words make it glaringly obvious.

It probably rarely affects actual usage, but I suggest this as a credible distinguishing case…

I want to go to her garden party, but don’t want to go because I’ll have to eat those stupid cucumber sandwiches, which I know will give me indigestion.

As a native speaker I think the vast majority would prefer have over need above. Have to (usually pronounced haff in past/past tense) connotates more strongly with obligation (often, to external authority, as opposed to meeting “internal” needs/requirements).?

I can’t think of a corresponding context where need is preferred over have to, and I admit I’ve no authoritative source for my speculation as to why (or even whether) my cited case applies.

If perfect construction is used to reflect the fact that something was actually done, despite being unnecessary/not required, as opposed to not done, because it was unnecessary (always used for the purpose of assessing the fit and finish). OP’s full context, obviously the former applies, but I

tried to answer “requirements” but didn’t bother *he stayed in bed because he actually mustn’t have had to get up so early! * He stayed
in bed because he didn’t have to get up so early. 2 A:
Hasn’t he stayed in bed since he didn’t want to get up so early? (similar to 2a)

Arguably the principle of horror aequi (we don’t like to hear or read identical constructions too close together) militates in favour of You didn’t need to have done that (but explicitly, you did ) rather than the have to version. I don’t think, because of the hafta dialect differences in our language, it really

matters.