A: List all names beginning with the

letter A (but don’t list any other names) B: List all names (but begin with those that
start with with the letter A) but OP’s third sentence can only mean B above.

In the above, it’s implicit that a notional “list” already exists, arranged in some natural sequence (probably, alphabetical ), so it makes sense to starting “reading out” that list from a specified point. Known as from the beginning to the end, note that this is a “metaphoric” usage based on the spatial/directional connotations. -Swap + Spin x. The following definitions are available for this usage when selected by a user.

Now to talk about OP’s sentences – it’s likely or unlikely any list exists at all (and even if it did, there’s no obvious sequence). Idiomatically, unless there’s some reason we wish to emphasise the starting point (and subsequent sequence), we start with the first item.

If the first item is not the item, we first have to see it first, so that we can get the correct initial (and later item) set then.

How can English make the distinction OP refers to, simply by using different inflections?

Your ignorance of this same situation means you know about it, but choose to ignore it. Of course the situation doesn’t always happen with every person.

I want to use the gerund, you can speak of willful ignorance, but “not knowing” means that it associates so strongly with ignorance that this usually means you have gone to some trouble to avoid knowing (rather than that you know, and choose to ignore)

If a word is double the same word (one word = one pronunciation) then why are the two spellings similar? When there

was no Connection from the OED, the earlier English lexicographers, including Bailey, Johnson, Walker, Todd, Crabb, recognize similarities only. Connection appears in Webster (1828) who says “For the sake of regular analogy, I have inserted connection as the derivative of the English connect, and would discard connexion ‘. In fact, Latham would have distinguished the two spellings and use connexion only in the senses 5 – 8 Connexion is the official and invariable spelling in sense 8, and used in all senses by the majority of English writers (or printers) until the mid-20th cent. When connection became more common.
5:
A personal relation of common interest, or action. Can you provide pl.
6. Relationship by family ties, as marriage or distant consanguinity. Often with ‘a’ and pl.
6: A body, or circle of persons connected together, or with whom one is connected…
8: Used by Wesley of those associated or connected with him in his religious work; thence it gradually became with the Wesleyans equivalent to’religious society’ or ‘denomination’, and is used also by other Methodist associations and bodies which have sprung from them.
I

know it’s a lot of cut and paste, but I can’t see anything to add, cut, or phrase better. You shouldn’t use “vulgar” in formal contexts – it’ll probably be thought “vulgar”. Thanks!

Why doesn’t we find an answer in this blog?

Which basic construction as adjective adjective extends more literal / transparently metaphorical usages such as as good as gold, as hard as nails, as nice as pie.

Additional to OP’s cited hell usage there’s the slightly more euphemistic…

He’s as mad as hell…and
the more explicitly coarse… He’s
angry as fuck (It
was as) dark as buggery (this one’s far from common, particularly in AmE) But

note that not many adjectives can be used in this way. Despite what the prudes say, people who swear a lot don’t necessarily do this because they have limited command of the language. The “rules” of swearing are often very precise – unsurprisingly, since one of its more important functions is to easily distinguish “in-group” speakers from “out-group” speakers.

In the coarser version, there’s usually no specific semantic content to the particular expletive. Is there a precise way in which “words” in OP’s are used to convey the word “or”my”?

Where can I find some short and easy expletives for this pattern?

Where you’re likely to find written paper used as “a compound noun” is in the context of exams – specifically things like driving or language tests (with practical/oral tests which can be distinguished from the written part of the exam).

How do you use written paper to mean a piece of paper with words which is written on a board? As an attribute adjective (coming before a noun), written is usually only used in contexts where it distinguishes something from other possible formats (spoken, illustrated, acted out, etc.).

In purely practical terms you probably wouldn’t change a night’s dream on paper and make things in writing, even if editing is a computer program. Most likely you’d just make changes as you write the text, so… Some

people get relief from bad dreams by writing them down on paper, changing the negative stories or thoughts into positive ones. If they studied the paper before

for stylistic reasons I’d probably change writing to writing and be sure to add but

before changing setting to the paper.

Is language an evolutionary process?

The origins of the word “the”, aren’t connected with those of “a/an”, so there’s no reason why they should share all characteristics.

As OP says “some” can function as a kind of ‘plural’ for “a” in terms of the “n/an” subset. So can “a few”, “a number of” etc. In some situations, “any” can be used as the pluralised version of “a/an”. I’m not overly concerned about the scope of the term “indefinite article” – it’s just a (sometimes enlightening) name we often use, not a ‘pre-existing’ class into which any given word either falls or doesn’t.

What if multiple AP subjects are required to use a/an from multiple subjects? In some contexts “a” can effectively refer to multiple subjects where “the” implies a single one “….A president should

be allowed to say he’screwed up’ surely? “I’m

not talking about a president, the president shouldn’t have said that!” OP:

More specific addressing OP’s question as to why “AP/AN” can’t be pluralised the same as “the”. Firstly, note that in the above example, “a” is effectively pluralised – as becomes clear when you realise it means “presidents in general” rather than “a randomly selected president”.

What you mean by “Recipe: Mix cloves, cinnamon stick, and apples in a bowl”? Why there is a plural from an apple to an article as a separate essay?

What reasons do you have for using an indefinite article for “one of it,” unless there are more than one of them?

Fourthly, “a” can mean exactly “one”, particularly in contexts associated with ‘countability’ (so can “the” but more in the context of ‘identification’). This makes us leery of using it around plural subjects, because we sense it sits uneaily with ‘one-ness’ of “a”,

which is used for word ‘theorist/puppet and/or name’ of _____________ in adjectives for “”.

Is it largely (but not completely) arbitrary whether to use, say, North or Northern as a modifier?

In contexts where North is a well-recognised “entity” (North Korea, North America, for example), there’s a very strong tendency to use length X.

In contexts where there’s more the sense of “ad-hoc” distinction being made between the geographically-distinct areas within “X”, the tendency is to use the more overtly adjectival form. Thus we’re likely to refer to “Northern Alpine slopes”, or Northern England, because these areas are still fundamentally perceived as being part of “The Alpine slopes”, or “England”, rather than autonomous entities.

But as mentioned in comments, in many cases (names of institutions, for example), it’s entirely a matter for the people in charge how they call themselves. Why should I do something? If someone would do it, they might just simply have an opinion. Is

that because people did, or are not, to influence others who see that something isn’t up to par?

If you want a term that will be understood by most reasonably educated laymen (as opposed to something only social anthropologists would understand), you might consider…

“Just-so” stories
A collection written by the British author Rudyard Kipling
highly fantasised origin stories

Obviously Kipling himself didn’t intend to undermine the scientific method (they were just entertaining stories for children), but in recent years they’ve been metaphorically referenced by popular science writers like Richard Dawkins and Neil Tyson by way of contrast to

You can’t argue with the whole English-speaking world, and the fact of the matter is they overwhelmingly prefer smaller to lesser or lower.

I believe that 1 is a bigger number. If asked if you agree with me, would you agree? Because negative numbers don’t have real-world correlates, so we all tend to be a bit vague on that one. (If nobody knows or is interested in that one, why does this happen)

Is i smaller than 2i faster. Is there any evidence for this? Or are the two examples the same?

Both men are ok to use but they’re not great to play with. Both specific usages will be asked about but on average people prefer to use the former. I got my first one more years teaching later. Below is a better NGram for those who still want to dispute that point…

It’s not the same to me how permit conveys exactly the same meaning as allow and enable here, but personally I don’t like this “intransitive” usage (where it’s unspecified who is enabled / allowed / permitted to do something) It’s a relatively recent usage, as show by this NGram.

As pointed out above, I see no possibility of any of those three verbs conveying any different meaning. Idiomatically, enable and permit are probably more common in such contexts, but that doesn’t mean the alternatives are in any sense “incorrect” – providing it’s used transitively (with an “object” such as us,

you, one,…) whereas the “intransitive” version with allow merely “grapes” on my ear, I’d be more inclined to say that such usages really are “syntactically invalid” with permit. Assuming nobody is a native speaker and not “the native speaker” in my sentence, if you insist on not specifying that then you should definitely stick with allow (but I at least will always tend to assume that “non-native speaker” when I see/hear that usage).

Offhand I can’t think of many contexts where there’s any significant difference in meaning between to allow / permit / enable , but perhaps one might argue that being enabled more strongly implies having an (internally-based) ability/capacity to do something, whereas being allowed / permitted more strongly alludes to not being prevented from doing something by (externally-based) constraints. Thus one might favour

His well-developed muscles enabled him to lift very heavy dumbbell
weights
over His well-developed muscles allowed him to lift very heavy dumbbell

weights…but in practice I don’t think many people would make that distinction. On the other hand, only allow / permit can really be used where the intended sense is very clearly that of being given permission / having (existing, rule-based) constraints lifted, as in… The

teacher allowed the children to leave school early on the last day of term (Where
permitted would also work but enabled normally 1 ^wouldn’t.) 1,

^As an example of an “unusual” context where enabled could work

What is the best way to describe the human body?