None too dissimilar means practically nothing.

All three words are negatives (in English for short) Is the link between NPI and every other NPI hardly spelled out?

None is a negative existential quantifier meaning not one any or not all. (x).? s(x).? = (x).

Too, though was a quantificational adverb with complex syntax. If something is too P then it is P to cause or cause some negative outcome. Logically (x) (Degree(P(x)) (Degree(P(x)) S)..

Dissimilar is a symmetric negative predicate with two arguments — either of which can be subject if the other is object, which is not the norm. Is there any overt negative that declares that the degree of parallelity is low. I don’t bother with the logic here; the point is, it’s complicated.

What did this imply, and could anyone type of phrase in the same way? Why does hypernegation are inevitable?

None too dissimilar means practically nothing.

All three words are negatives (in English for short) Is the link between NPI and every other NPI hardly spelled out?

None is a negative existential quantifier meaning not one any or not all. (x).? s(x).? = (x).

Too, though was a quantificational adverb with complex syntax. If something is too P then it is P to cause or cause some negative outcome. Logically (x) (Degree(P(x)) (Degree(P(x)) S)..

Dissimilar is a symmetric negative predicate with two arguments — either of which can be subject if the other is object, which is not the norm. Is there any overt negative that declares that the degree of parallelity is low. I don’t bother with the logic here; the point is, it’s complicated.

What did this imply, and could anyone type of phrase in the same way? Why does hypernegation are inevitable?

The few is quite rare, and used only when designating a small number of things or people that have some special distinction

• the few rounds left in their magazines, the few guests who escaped the fire

There’s a big difference between few and a few, however.
Why do our directed quantifiers point in opposite directions?

• a few means ‘a small but still positive number’, while
• few is a negative quantifier, and means ‘fewer than expected, predicted, or wished’

Few governs negative polarity items like ever and produces the following pair:

• Few people never come here in the winter, but not…

because a few isn’t negative and hence can’t trigger ever; as
well as the following pair, which produce opposite results: Thank

• God that few people were hurt!
• Thank heavens for the bad news!

If you don’t enjoy negative versus positive injuries, you’re thanking God for them.

Negatives are tricky. Much trickier than most people expect.

The few is quite rare, and used only when designating a small number of things or people that have some special distinction

• the few rounds left in their magazines, the few guests who escaped the fire

There’s a big difference between few and a few, however.
Why do our directed quantifiers point in opposite directions?

• a few means ‘a small but still positive number’, while
• few is a negative quantifier, and means ‘fewer than expected, predicted, or wished’

Few governs negative polarity items like ever and produces the following pair:

• Few people never come here in the winter, but not…

because a few isn’t negative and hence can’t trigger ever; as
well as the following pair, which produce opposite results: Thank

• God that few people were hurt!
• Thank heavens for the bad news!

If you don’t enjoy negative versus positive injuries, you’re thanking God for them.

Negatives are tricky. Much trickier than most people expect.

It’s going to be hard to displace a natural and well-established Metaphor like the UP/DOWN family of metaphor themes. UP/DOWN is a very long term metaphor. It’s not a concept, but a metaphor.

Do they talk about being metaphorically high, for some reason, and in whatever way, is

• coherent with the UP is HAPPY (DOWN is SAD)
  • theme He’s depressed.
  • What’s a
  • downer?

as well as the

• UP is BETTER ( DOWN is WORSE ) theme
  • He fell down on the midterm.
  • a rise/fall in performance
  • upwardly-mobile

and the

• UP is ABSTRACT/DOWN is CONCRETE ) theme head in
  • the clouds feet on
  • the ground Come back
  • to Earth.
  • new heights of abstraction

Virtually all the ways we use to talk about mental experiences are metaphors. This is nothing

new here.

What is the -‘s possessive suffix? What is a problem with this? What is a problem, however, with the use of Liver in

Liver’s ability to detoxify alcohol was tested.

Without an article, liver is a meat, a mass noun like beef,, never treated as a count noun: I

had a liver yesterday night for a night’s dinner. Will the liver kill me from eating.

(Well, almost always; Hannibal Lector is an outlier.) This sentence is intended to be an experiment (see why the count construction’s

avoided.) Is it, like all the other sentences, about any thought? Generally, the construction used there would be a Definite Generic The liver.

How was the ability of the liver to

detoxify into alcohol tested? Epistemologically, one can’t actually test: the generic liver does not exist and is not available for testing — it’s a platonic ideal.

This is a rare instance of errativity in english.

As it says in the linked,

Adding the suffix -ee to a verb produces a label for a person who is the absolute of the verb i. e, a person who is either the Direct Object of a transitive verb, or the Subject of an intransitive verb. But, if yes, this person does not change any actions.

Intransitives:

• Bill has retired Bill is a retiree.
• Bill Clinton has escaped from the CIA. He has been arrested for engaging in prostitution. Bill is a slave.
• Bill is currently standing. How is it going to end ISIS? Bill is a standee. When will the bill change?

Transitives:

• They employ Mary’s brother. She’s an employer. She’s not an employer.
• I cried when they inducted Mary. Mary is an inductee of the Oxford College.
• And the king appointed Mary. What was the deal with Elizabeth? (Not exactly Anne’s account) Mary is an appointee.

What is nice about play and a lot fun?

What are you guys?

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.