What is it anyway, since it’s a rather “dated” form that would normally be expressed today as pay you back, meaning retaliate

and settle the score.

As @Stangdon commented, a few is for countable things, like apples, little would go with too much for non-countable things, like a little too much flour.. Right here it is on pictures ( link1, link2 )…

On a plane, for example, you can say: “Please take my case down from the overhead rack” as a courtesy to your passenger. The person may be thinking about what the problem might be, because it is common to you. My case has to be removed from the overhead rack!

Is it possible to get my case down and get my case out?” In any context, such words are easily overlapped in this context. Why don’t sound engineers generally associate “take” with physical relocation? If not, how should a sound engineer take the bass down?

By the same token, OP’s son could have said ” Get the TV out” (Telecast/IPhone) which should have raised OP’s eyebrows less. Are TVs fixed straight to the back of the seat in front?

In short, the cards are still in play as regards standard usage here, so I wouldn’t like to say that OP’s isn’t the speech of tomorrow, today.

OP can tell us approximately what kind of behaviour he’s talking about, but the choice of adjective depends very much on the attitude of others to that behaviour.

Tom can be described as pragmatic, focussed, objective, goaled, etc. , by someone who either admires his or is simply offering a neutral description. ” But someone who doesn’t approve of the way Tom acts might say he’s self-centred, self-obsessed, egotistic, etc.

In the final analysis, all such words are somewhat vague. Is it true that Tom is often a manipulator?

I think we seem to have a tendency in modern writing to use a comma where otherwise one would have used a full stop or semicolon. To drop slightly the comma sometimes where it might have been used by an earlier generation of writers.

I agree with the head of your CPP, a dissenter of yours. Is the use of commas in older writing easy? But don’t be afraid to use one instead of a full stop if the two sentences thus being merged are very closely connected.

Since in this context means just after (i.e. by when) or before (semantic meaning for “assign as after”), on the following paragraph (in SLMS context). – after some time explicitly or implicitly identified in accompanying text) Should OP imagine replacing after the time at which he actually existed in his examples?

In other contexts, since can mean because, but that’s really just a metaphoric extension of the above.

What’s bothering OP is that since has many subtly different uses and there’s such thing as semantics. How can you explain the OED a

short time period?
2: Ever or continuously from (a specified time, etc.) till now.
A point of time in which an event or an action is followed.
4: In sentences implying continuity of action or fact during the period indicated. Also with ever, and (rarely) with that, that.

(no one will ever be able to remember its time in the past in multiple senses), most if not all sense imply continuity from whatever time in the past is indicated by since, up to now.). In a common context, we use “I have known John since we were children” and we normally use “past perfect” there because we still know him now.

So if you were at John’s funeral there would you be able to join in with his and your friends? I knew John once before he ever knew about him (he lived in Delaware). It would be perfect grammatical to say “I know John since we were children” (you don’t really know him any more, since he’s dead). I suspect many native speakers might have the same misgivings as OP, but I think it’s just because we’re more used to contexts where there is continuity into the present. I would be tempted to say I knew him since when even if he wasn’t there for the whole time before, but that hardly happened until now/eversince then implication.

The full context is I’m glad the old jive broad split. From the full OED…

Jive U.S. slang
Used, chiefly by black Americans, in the primary sense ‘not acting correctly’ but with a broad range of connotations (commonly called ‘neglectful’, ‘morally corrupt’, etc.).

s broad is old-time (respectful) slang for a woman, and split is slang for left, went away?

The speaker is glad some particular woman left him (he didn’t think highly of her anyway).

I would vote for Android any day (if we’re judging purely on

the basis of boot times) I’d bet on him any day I’d choose that any day
I’d marry you any day, etc.


, etc., and no, etc.

The usage of 24 hours is correct, the standard version assumes no one wants on any given day of the week?

I could eat ice cream all day, I understand this is important but this is not the same as the more common all day usage found in I could eat ice cream all day, because that one

does (excessively) allude to the 24-hour duration of the day.

In this exact context, idiomatically we’re more likely to use in and discard the superfluous preposition/phrasal verb particle up, and the indefinite article, giving Not every job will end in success. And in closely-related constructions such as Every speech ended with a standing ovation it is actually more common. You can get a standing ovation in a speech by youself.

If you want a semantic justification (not always particularly helpful for established idiomatic usages like this) you could say with = (happening) together; at the same time/place; end result+success coincide.

I already posted the above as a comment, but I thought it was worth showing these two usages…

1: Selfistic humanism starts with optimism but ends in pessimism.
2: verse 2 starts in an accusatory manner, with the conjunction P’1,38 but ends with a vindication

(which I think illustrate just how finely-balanced the choice of preposition can be with starting and ending . Is it strange to use both (in either sequence) within a binary juxtaposition (A but B)?

But they’re are both perfectly well-formed, and in my opinion actually represent the best choices for the exact contexts as phrased.

Is “semantic justification” an effective explanation when you are having trouble recalling an order? It actually lists no less than 23 different ways you could understand constructions involving about. But even probably the most “unintuitive” one…

20 used to show who or what a strong wish or order concerns
Down with school!
What is your reason to go to bed?

Can be “understood” as meaning let these two things (being down/going off to bed) be together, coexist – they’re just metaphoric extensions from Do you want fries with your burger?

What are some answers for the story “Turn on Earth”?