Andrew writes in his comment, the most natural choice would probably be had. I’m not sure why you think take is too general nor: It accurately describes what happens. “I am interested in politics.”

What are the benefits of picking up your painkillers? Somewhere in between, and a

little bit far from your hand have you got a splittin’ headache?

Snatch, in English, usually means’steal’, but it is used frequently in colloquial speech to refer to taking something (with no intention of giving it back), but without any reference to whether you’ve obtained permission or not.

Of course, in the context of your example, logic and normal expectations would override almost any verb, and even borrow could be used without anyone think that the headache-ridden would ever intend or be expected to actually give back the painkillers after they’d passed through his system.

Andrew writes in his comment, the most natural choice would probably be had. I’m not sure why you think take is too general nor: It accurately describes what happens. “I am interested in politics.”

What are the benefits of picking up your painkillers? Somewhere in between, and a

little bit far from your hand have you got a splittin’ headache?

Snatch, in English, usually means’steal’, but it is used frequently in colloquial speech to refer to taking something (with no intention of giving it back), but without any reference to whether you’ve obtained permission or not.

Of course, in the context of your example, logic and normal expectations would override almost any verb, and even borrow could be used without anyone think that the headache-ridden would ever intend or be expected to actually give back the painkillers after they’d passed through his system.

Andrew writes in his comment, the most natural choice would probably be had. I’m not sure why you think take is too general nor: It accurately describes what happens. “I am interested in politics.”

What are the benefits of picking up your painkillers? Somewhere in between, and a

little bit far from your hand have you got a splittin’ headache?

Snatch, in English, usually means’steal’, but it is used frequently in colloquial speech to refer to taking something (with no intention of giving it back), but without any reference to whether you’ve obtained permission or not.

Of course, in the context of your example, logic and normal expectations would override almost any verb, and even borrow could be used without anyone think that the headache-ridden would ever intend or be expected to actually give back the painkillers after they’d passed through his system.

Voilu00e0 what you mean by facetious. For 4 months, John has been saying “I will have finished my novel by Monday” like a dog. This is for each day of the past four months. He is very busy and has had to do so because he is bored. When I finish my first novel I should be able to write a complete review.

When Tomorrow comes and he still doesn’t complete the novel, of course, his statement can be related indirectly as, “He said that he was going to have finished his novel by today”.

After a while, someone less than kindly points out that John has now been “going to have finished” his novel “by today” for no less than four months—rather a distant use of the word ‘tomorrow’.

We are having difficulty in simplifying: “For four months now John has been going to finish his novel by tomorrow” because of that little preposition by. One of his characters is so good there was no one more than John to thank for it. By indicates here a point in time when a certain action is already in a state of completion (has already been completed) When an action is performed, the time is not indicated (this is why the preposition is used)—a short preposition and few verbs make it seem to indicate the wrong time.

What goes best if he said, “I will finish on my novel soon”?! How should John begin telling the story upto the point when his novel is complete, and he would have been talking about the point in time when the novel is finished, and you could similarly simplify your sentence to “For four months now John has been going to finish his novel today” He said he “had finished my fiction novel by tomorrow” to the point of speculation that he would lose his job and be unemployed yet, I’d say he’d still be employed until I get his novel done. If a teenager is to finish his book any night, and you report this at last, and everything is over, but you have little choice but to make his companions to keep my clumsy and heavy auxiliaries.

Is

^there a more complicated explanation as to how to place words like today and tomorrow in different categories: adverb, noun, determiner, even pronouns? The details are unimportant here, just know that they function a bit different from regular nouns.

This usage of the word water seems to have gone back and forth a bit between singular and plural.

Second edition of the OED of 1989 gives this definition of water (sense 17). Note the definition of water can be the same as (though this definition doesn’t include water/water) or (both). c) The

fluid contained in the amniotic cavity ( liquor amnii) and now typically pl. The effusion of this fluid into the womb before the exclusion of the ftus, is commonly denoted by the expression ‘the waters have broken’ (from another part of the body).

Notice how it says “now usually pl “, rather than just “usually pl “. The first citation is from 1688 and uses the singular, whereas the other two citations (there are only three in all) are from 1754–64 and 1880 and both use the plural, though they also don’t involve the verb break.

What is the definition of Amniotic fluid?

If after infrared use freq. to make this feature, in later use freq decrypt. in pl.
_{Freq. as the subject or object of the verb break, with reference to the rupture of the fetal membranes and release of amniotic fluid, during the delivery of a baby (or the young of an animal).}

Also additional notes have been added as well. There are now 40 citations in total, of which six use the singular and four do the plural. Three quotations use the word as the subject of break (of which one, from 1958, is plural and two, from 1658 and 1991, are singular); one, from 2005, uses it as the subject in the plural (“What had the Registrar broken my water?”). The rest of you don’t use this verb with the verb break. Canadian, all citations that use the plural are British, and the ones that use the singular are American.

Google Ngrams are perhaps not really the most useful tool for this expression, since both versions (“Her water broke” and “Her waters broke”) almost flatline completely until the 1940s—presumably such a matter was too delicate to be entrusted quite as directly to paper in earlier times. The really usable statistics started around 1960 or so. If you search with a broader scope, you’ll find that the singular is far more common than the plural overall. If you break down your search by corpus, however, you’ll see that there is a clear dialectal difference here:

In British English alone, the two were fairly neck and neck (with data points that look somewhat unreliable) until around 1980, after which the plural took hold and the singular began to wane. If plural is not a singular as it used to be since the Romanticism of Xerx was created in 437 A.D. (from 1012-13).

That said, in american English alone, not only has the singular been more common throughout, since the 1960s, but it is also now more than ten times as common as the plural.

Is the American singular better than the British plural?

Has yet to is perfectly correct, and there are no conflicting tenses in it. Remember, the verb have can combine with a past participle to form perfect constructions (present perfect and past perfect, respectively, for present and past have) but can also combine with a to -infinitive.

The definition of ‘have to X’ is to’must X’, but if you add yet, the meaning changes. It is in fact a slightly different collocation of verbs, and it works with both have and be, though have is much more common. What does “X is not happening yet” mean if X is to happen?

Is there a case for “No chess-playing computer has yet to win a championship” meaning “No chess-playing computer has not yet won a championship”? Presumably it would mean that every chess-playing computer will win a championship already, but it’s basically nonsensical.

…even though no computer has won a Championship yet.

(I don’t know why), the following two are more or less equivalent, though:
With a chess network that uses the internet to train players, computers haven’t won major championships.

This is idiomatic phrasing and often used as the basis for the main word so, where does Hes to do it mean either he must do it or it is known of His or she will do it? Consider “he is about to do it”—that means that he will do it in a moment. However here means still, and so if you say “He is yet/still to do it”, it means that it is still expected/known/assisted that he will do it; in other words, he has not done it

yet.

Why do I think Numacra for a language in Spanish don’t yet exist? At least, I have never come across it, though it would certainly be a logical and useful term to have.

If all I want to describe is the word “in any order,” the one I can think of are all (slightly) ambiguous and not set terms.

What I would use is simply an unfamiliar language. In the context, this should be clear enough, though it could also imply a language that the person has never heard of (like Adyghe or Nuxu00e1lk to most people), or even one that has a very different structure to what the person is familiar with (so both Hungarian and Nuxu00e1lk could theoretically be said to be very structurally unfamiliar to an English speaker).

Other options include non-mastered language (though you could argue that a language you only speak at a very basic level is ‘non-mastered’, too), unstudied language (though that could also be a language that has just received too little academic study in general), or non-known language (though that could also be a language that we just don’t know about, like Chinese or Tamil).

If a missing 0 means they can’t communicate in English, and also an empty space, you could also, if coining non-transparent term is an option, try a vocab, like Wikipedia’s user language template, and compute from this, where a complete lack of proficiency is denoted by a zero 0 (so

en-0 means “can’t communicate in English at all”) and call such a language a 0-language or zero-language.

When you search “indivisible between”, a regular Google search get about 350,000 hits. The same goes for “English”, although there have been also a few exceptions (eg; the meaning of the search is not correct).

How many examples of this usage are there in a dictionaries?

As such, I wouldn’t classify it as ‘truly ungrammatical’, but rather perhaps as ‘best avoided in contexts where you wish to steer clear of potentially controversial grammar’.

In your particular phrase, I would suggest:

X is indifferent to whether (we do/he does/etc.) Y or Z

Or, even more plainly spoken:

X does not care whether (we do/he does/etc.) Y or Z

Edit to reflect edited question.

What is the meaning of these 10 word sentences?

A comma is usually used between adjectives that are parallel, that is, modify the same head in a noun phrase. This usage is essentially just a listing comma: you put commas before all entries in a list (including or excepting the final one thatalso has an and, depending on whether you like the Oxford comma or not).

Example:

A small, red, wooden(,) and cozy house.

Here, we have four adjectives that all modify house : The house is small, it is red, it is wooden, and it is cozy.

If we put this statement in the context of a copular sentence,

it becomes: The house is small, red, wooden, and cozy.

Conversely, there is no comma between adjective and thing that it modifies. So there is never a comma in “a wooden house”. But adjectives are also used in nouns. They are not just used but can also be used in a noun. Ambrose yay yay, yay yay noun phrase modified by adjective. What does a red wooden house feel

like, and what is the following?

This means something different, though: it means that the house is wooden. This ] (another single unit) is red. And the ] (single unit again) is small.

If we make a copular sentence from this, it becomes’stacked layers’: The house is

cozy.
The cozy house is built of wooden.
The wooden house is red.
With only two interior spaces, the cozy house is small.

In this example, that gets a bit geeky. What is it more natural to just describe a member of the category homes as being all four things more than taking a member of the somewhat fanciful category German cozy houses and describing it as German, etc?

In your example a 30-day money-back guarantee

is a good thing.
A 90 day no risk trial. How can I learn more about this booming business?

With the comma, these phrases describe a member of the category guarantees, which is then said to be both 30-day and money-back ; and a member of the category trials, which is said to be both 90-day and no risk. Without the commas, the categories are money-back guarantees and no-risk trials.

In copular form with the comma

: The guarantee is the 30-day money-back guaranteed.
Is there a risk in the 90-day trial.

So is any money

back guarantee required in every product that is purchased after 30 days?
No -risk trial is 90 days.

Lest some people ask me which one is more logical, and some people think it makes sense? Either version, with or without the comma, is perfectly correct; they just mean slightly different things.

No-risk or money-back. Neither is that really a true adjective. They’re more like noun adjuncts. (Some of such adjectives refer to “swedish”, whereas in our society they’re more about noun adjuncts. Do copular sentences sound the same? (Critical: Generally, they are taken as attributively rather than predicatively )

Most adjectives that describes the perceived quality of an action carried out by someone, or their state of being, correspond to identical adverbs. Examples include such adjectives as ‘fine’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘great’, ‘fantastic’, ‘horrible’, ‘okay’, etc.

I am doing great / I am doing greatly
He plays okay / He plays niceaily
It works fine / It works finely He’s got bad / He’s got badly Many verbs

have adverbial counterparts, whether formed by regular -ly derivation or otherwise, that are not identical to their adjectival forms. What are mandatorily used when describing degree/manner, rather than judging quality : Wages

have greatly increased This
story is fantastically boring That
tap is leaking badly (Some

dialects would be okay with using an adjective in the last example, but as far as I know, “Wages have great increased” is ungrammatical in every dialect of English, so the order of the constituents also plays a role here) In

the case of ‘good/well’, there is an additional problem that ‘ I’m saying i’m doing good, or I’m really well, despite the fact that I’m wrong. I fail to realise that ‘By Good’ is an adjective with which we can compare and contrast etc. Why take quality over quantity largely? I am doing good / I am doing well are both equally valid, both when

describing one’s current state of health (quality) and when

answering a question on how one is getting along with a task (degree/manner).