What is the result of an adjective being removed from the question?

In some cases the meaning of the writing was little- but the writing was a lot more colorless; not there just

as bad as the hungry girl devoured the piping hot food.

Can

a girl find out she devoured her food?

Other times, the lack of an adjective will introduce ambiguity.

The tall policeman put a ticket on the red car across the street.

You

know the police dog put a ticket on your car in the street.

I would love to take an police officer (one tall and one short) and a large car (one red, one silver) and explain all the circumstances. It would be a pity if all of the car parts were on display but not really useful.

To conduct a bankruptcies in the

United States and to issue a currency note and to regulate the currency; to regulate the value of the currency and to issue in foreign countries issuing currency. And to provide

for a system of punishment for counterfeiting the securities and

current coin; Notice how often the phrase “the United States” appears in Section 8.

Why is the document addressing federal laws, such as national defense, national debt, punishments for counterfeiting, etc.? What do you mean by commerce clause (which the Constitution mentions most clearly at rs135)? The Constitution mentions commerce between local states, not just between countries. The United States is a state, and hence all the states are states.

Does the word “some” need to be removed to make it less meaningful? I believe so, particularly if the preposition “between” was used instead of “among”. After all, the document is merely enumerating three possible areas of commerce regulation, and declaring that Congress has the authority to regulate all three: commerce

• between the United States and some other country (e.g. Canada), which comes from China, Vietnam and some other country) Commerce among states themselves
• (e.g. the U.S. and France) Commerce between the U.S., and one of
• the Indian Tribes Could that still be inferred and understood,

after the word “several” was removed? I

think the word “several” helps convey the full meaning and intent of the clause but I don’t feel it’s a necessary word.

What is the result of an adjective being removed from the question?

In some cases the meaning of the writing was little- but the writing was a lot more colorless; not there just

as bad as the hungry girl devoured the piping hot food.

Can

a girl find out she devoured her food?

Other times, the lack of an adjective will introduce ambiguity.

The tall policeman put a ticket on the red car across the street.

You

know the police dog put a ticket on your car in the street.

I would love to take an police officer (one tall and one short) and a large car (one red, one silver) and explain all the circumstances. It would be a pity if all of the car parts were on display but not really useful.

To conduct a bankruptcies in the

United States and to issue a currency note and to regulate the currency; to regulate the value of the currency and to issue in foreign countries issuing currency. And to provide

for a system of punishment for counterfeiting the securities and

current coin; Notice how often the phrase “the United States” appears in Section 8.

Why is the document addressing federal laws, such as national defense, national debt, punishments for counterfeiting, etc.? What do you mean by commerce clause (which the Constitution mentions most clearly at rs135)? The Constitution mentions commerce between local states, not just between countries. The United States is a state, and hence all the states are states.

Does the word “some” need to be removed to make it less meaningful? I believe so, particularly if the preposition “between” was used instead of “among”. After all, the document is merely enumerating three possible areas of commerce regulation, and declaring that Congress has the authority to regulate all three: commerce

• between the United States and some other country (e.g. Canada), which comes from China, Vietnam and some other country) Commerce among states themselves
• (e.g. the U.S. and France) Commerce between the U.S., and one of
• the Indian Tribes Could that still be inferred and understood,

after the word “several” was removed? I

think the word “several” helps convey the full meaning and intent of the clause but I don’t feel it’s a necessary word.

What is the result of an adjective being removed from the question?

In some cases the meaning of the writing was little- but the writing was a lot more colorless; not there just

as bad as the hungry girl devoured the piping hot food.

Can

a girl find out she devoured her food?

Other times, the lack of an adjective will introduce ambiguity.

The tall policeman put a ticket on the red car across the street.

You

know the police dog put a ticket on your car in the street.

I would love to take an police officer (one tall and one short) and a large car (one red, one silver) and explain all the circumstances. It would be a pity if all of the car parts were on display but not really useful.

To conduct a bankruptcies in the

United States and to issue a currency note and to regulate the currency; to regulate the value of the currency and to issue in foreign countries issuing currency. And to provide

for a system of punishment for counterfeiting the securities and

current coin; Notice how often the phrase “the United States” appears in Section 8.

Why is the document addressing federal laws, such as national defense, national debt, punishments for counterfeiting, etc.? What do you mean by commerce clause (which the Constitution mentions most clearly at rs135)? The Constitution mentions commerce between local states, not just between countries. The United States is a state, and hence all the states are states.

Does the word “some” need to be removed to make it less meaningful? I believe so, particularly if the preposition “between” was used instead of “among”. After all, the document is merely enumerating three possible areas of commerce regulation, and declaring that Congress has the authority to regulate all three: commerce

• between the United States and some other country (e.g. Canada), which comes from China, Vietnam and some other country) Commerce among states themselves
• (e.g. the U.S. and France) Commerce between the U.S., and one of
• the Indian Tribes Could that still be inferred and understood,

after the word “several” was removed? I

think the word “several” helps convey the full meaning and intent of the clause but I don’t feel it’s a necessary word.

What is the result of an adjective being removed from the question?

In some cases the meaning of the writing was little- but the writing was a lot more colorless; not there just

as bad as the hungry girl devoured the piping hot food.

Can

a girl find out she devoured her food?

Other times, the lack of an adjective will introduce ambiguity.

The tall policeman put a ticket on the red car across the street.

You

know the police dog put a ticket on your car in the street.

I would love to take an police officer (one tall and one short) and a large car (one red, one silver) and explain all the circumstances. It would be a pity if all of the car parts were on display but not really useful.

To conduct a bankruptcies in the

United States and to issue a currency note and to regulate the currency; to regulate the value of the currency and to issue in foreign countries issuing currency. And to provide

for a system of punishment for counterfeiting the securities and

current coin; Notice how often the phrase “the United States” appears in Section 8.

Why is the document addressing federal laws, such as national defense, national debt, punishments for counterfeiting, etc.? What do you mean by commerce clause (which the Constitution mentions most clearly at rs135)? The Constitution mentions commerce between local states, not just between countries. The United States is a state, and hence all the states are states.

Does the word “some” need to be removed to make it less meaningful? I believe so, particularly if the preposition “between” was used instead of “among”. After all, the document is merely enumerating three possible areas of commerce regulation, and declaring that Congress has the authority to regulate all three: commerce

• between the United States and some other country (e.g. Canada), which comes from China, Vietnam and some other country) Commerce among states themselves
• (e.g. the U.S. and France) Commerce between the U.S., and one of
• the Indian Tribes Could that still be inferred and understood,

after the word “several” was removed? I

think the word “several” helps convey the full meaning and intent of the clause but I don’t feel it’s a necessary word.

I am going to a pub for pie!

In a sentence, there is nothing wrong with it. I imagine the speaker will soon be seated in a restaurant, ordering a slice of pie. We should be asking to serve some good pizza to go. For example, is cheese a tasty alternative to steak?

I

would go to a resturant to eat pie. Such is the nature of eating pie, it’s that good?

What is that version that makes you look so shocked? When you eat a pie, that typically means that you eat the whole pie (non-stick). That means that you eat the whole pie too.

If you eat a cake, you eat it…what does it mean? “We

don’t usually use the word (a) unless a person eats the whole thing as a single unit (in this context, “a” means “one”): I

went to the restaurant and ate a sandwich.
I went to a restaurant and ate gyro. Thank God, God bless me
I left a salad in a restaurant and ate it. How do I know what I ate?

How can I describe my experience in

the format where I get my unit for each unit?
I went to the restaurant tonight and ate one piece of pie. It is all ok, do you have any reason to eat a piece?
I went to a restaurant and ate a rack of ribs. It had been four months since I got over the experience.
I went to the restaurant and drank a glass of wine. I see that this is a good thing.

Where there is an unspecified amount of food (the lack of the word “a” means “some”) should I order scrambled eggs.

When I go to a restaurant and order spaghetti. I’m usually uncomfortable with the idea of ordering spaghetti. Im unable to explain.
How much price is shrimp?
If I am going to get a slice of pie for dessert, I’ll order a small slice for dessert.
When I go to a restaurant I’ll always get coffee.

The word “the” is used when one refers to a particular restaurant’s version of a meal.

What would you like to do today?
I’ll a have the veal saltimbocca.

What is the best way to explain the concepts to yourself and your loved ones?

What an interesting conversation it was! What’s upshot?

OneLook gives this definition of upshot : there are phenomena that follow and are caused by some precedent phenomena? Macmillan reads: the result of time / time / process. Merriam-Webster ¹ says quite simply, the final result or outcome. What exactly are these phrases? The OED ² – offers words such as an end, complete, climax, result, or conclusion, and gives examples of it being used in positive, negative, neutral, and yet-to-determined contexts.

The upshot of all was god defeated the devil.
I began to feel overwhelmed about my debts.
If a man could talk like that when he’s doing business, what would be the upshot?

In short, dictionaries are conspicuously mum about whether upshots are generally good, bad, or indifferent.

What is the use of the word in the contemporary world: literature, journals, magazines. What is the ghost of upshots?

It could be in the realm of economy, religion, law, sport, international conflict, evolution, or just the hardship of humans trying to eke out a living – whatever falls out at the end is deemed the upshot of the affair. Out of the thousands of possibilities found within those three links, I’ll offer just one (a scientific use, and a very fitting one at that, since all this research has made my brain hurt): And

because the emissions of various inhibitory neurons will not be in step with one another, the upshot will be inhibition that can last for a few tens of milliseconds. What word is used to describe negative outcomes?

Well, obviously, upshot will work fine, although that word can be (and is often) applied to decidedly positive contexts as well.

For alternatives, you might consider: disaster, debacle, catastrophe, calamity, setback, or misadventure, words with meanings that connote decidedly negative outcomes.

^Why was no link given to this website?
^There are no subscriptions at all.

No link given.

Macmillan has some interesting information on this. Under there phrasal listings for Sorry, they say: •

feel sorry for someone 1 to feel sympathy for someone because they are in a difficult or unpleasant situation but

also list: • I’m

sorry 1 used for telling someone that you’re embarrassed or unhappy about something that you have done that has hurt or upset them, I’m sorry – I shouldn’t have blamed you. On social media, you are asked to forgive for being rude. Please take care of it. I’ll stop my games, but I just always don’t know when I am late. I’m sorry, forgot to call last night to let you know.

I’ve found that people say, “I’m sorry,” when they wish to convey “I feel sorry for you, for something you have done too,” at times. This is what is often assumed to be true. I think most hearers overlook it, and make the mental jump just fine, but, apparently, some don’t, and they mistakenly wonder if “I’m sorry” means, “Let me apologize,” when it really means, “I feel bad for you,” While

you are enjoying the expression “I feel sorry for you” in my English-language posts, I’m often reluctant to say “I feel sorry for you” maybe because it

sounds too much like this phrasal use of the word sorry : • feel sorry for yourself 1 to feel sad about your life

rather than trying to do things that could make you feel better In my experience, feeling sorry for yourself is usually construed to be a bad thing so I can understand why someone might be reluctant to say I feel sorry for you What are some good ways to convey your opinions or feelings to a person. I feel bad for you. But how do I say it? ”

Sorry can be confusing word, I guess. Sorry for that.

What an interesting conversation it was! What’s upshot?

OneLook gives this definition of upshot : there are phenomena that follow and are caused by some precedent phenomena? Macmillan reads: the result of time / time / process. Merriam-Webster ¹ says quite simply, the final result or outcome. What exactly are these phrases? The OED ² – offers words such as an end, complete, climax, result, or conclusion, and gives examples of it being used in positive, negative, neutral, and yet-to-determined contexts.

The upshot of all was god defeated the devil.
I began to feel overwhelmed about my debts.
If a man could talk like that when he’s doing business, what would be the upshot?

In short, dictionaries are conspicuously mum about whether upshots are generally good, bad, or indifferent.

What is the use of the word in the contemporary world: literature, journals, magazines. What is the ghost of upshots?

It could be in the realm of economy, religion, law, sport, international conflict, evolution, or just the hardship of humans trying to eke out a living – whatever falls out at the end is deemed the upshot of the affair. Out of the thousands of possibilities found within those three links, I’ll offer just one (a scientific use, and a very fitting one at that, since all this research has made my brain hurt): And

because the emissions of various inhibitory neurons will not be in step with one another, the upshot will be inhibition that can last for a few tens of milliseconds. What word is used to describe negative outcomes?

Well, obviously, upshot will work fine, although that word can be (and is often) applied to decidedly positive contexts as well.

For alternatives, you might consider: disaster, debacle, catastrophe, calamity, setback, or misadventure, words with meanings that connote decidedly negative outcomes.

^Why was no link given to this website?
^There are no subscriptions at all.

No link given.

I assume the reporter asked the question via email and so Diener simply hit the Delete key on his email application. I am so

much annoyed at someone making a question about reporters that no one will reply. Is it true that the reporter’s question was dumb? As

for it being idiomatic English, expressions like that one are used every now and then, where we use computer or technology jargon to explain something, perhaps metaphorically, such as ” rebooting my life ” (when turning over a new leaf), or “pulling the plug” when we want to abandon a project.

I assume the reporter asked the question via email and so Diener simply hit the Delete key on his email application. I am so

much annoyed at someone making a question about reporters that no one will reply. Is it true that the reporter’s question was dumb? As

for it being idiomatic English, expressions like that one are used every now and then, where we use computer or technology jargon to explain something, perhaps metaphorically, such as ” rebooting my life ” (when turning over a new leaf), or “pulling the plug” when we want to abandon a project.