Yes, it’s an extracted object of the preposition for and with the preposition stranded. What is acceptable should you use who in business circles? If you do use the term “old-fashioned” in a sentence, it makes it sound old-fashioned or formal-sounding. I believe that where you are are from it can be perceived as emphatic; this is because who is the usual choice, so the whom draws attention to itself

Is the distinction between who and whom the same as long as it is current?

Yes, it’s an extracted object of the preposition for and with the preposition stranded. What is acceptable should you use who in business circles? If you do use the term “old-fashioned” in a sentence, it makes it sound old-fashioned or formal-sounding. I believe that where you are are from it can be perceived as emphatic; this is because who is the usual choice, so the whom draws attention to itself

Is the distinction between who and whom the same as long as it is current?

Is making a repetition a form of reduplication? Reduplication is the most common term, but let’s explore some more specific terms that are less common.

R. B.: The element attached to the base consists of both copied segments and fixed segments, ( a few linguists call this a duplifix

: a element attached to the base that consists of both affix and reduplicante) ( Understanding Morphology, Haspelmath and Sims, p. 1443)

If

we adopt this terminology, one common example would be the English duplifix (prefix) /m/ (variously spelled schm or shm ), and this process is sometimes called shm -reduplication. ”What do you say on a duplifix when the subject is rejected?

You promised me breakfast. I asked God for it in bed. But I wasn’t sure how happened.

Brodie : Breakfast, lunch. The Score: Look at it and understand with all the truth. I’m up 12 to 2 seconds into my second period and it’s just the second period. What could be the reason for this? Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, “The Whale,” they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

Here, breakfast is the discourse topic, and

Brodie is expressing a pejorative, dismissive attitude toward this topic with shm -reduplication.

Some people consider this form of reduplications as echo reduplications. These are common. In your example, mugar echoes sugar, but with the initial consonant replaced with /m/. If you are like most individuals on a network, why would you prefer mugar to be mugar? This might be the best term for your particular example; it doesn’t imply any sort of pejorative meaning like shm -reduplication does.

Have fun!

Is making a repetition a form of reduplication? Reduplication is the most common term, but let’s explore some more specific terms that are less common.

R. B.: The element attached to the base consists of both copied segments and fixed segments, ( a few linguists call this a duplifix

: a element attached to the base that consists of both affix and reduplicante) ( Understanding Morphology, Haspelmath and Sims, p. 1443)

If

we adopt this terminology, one common example would be the English duplifix (prefix) /m/ (variously spelled schm or shm ), and this process is sometimes called shm -reduplication. ”What do you say on a duplifix when the subject is rejected?

You promised me breakfast. I asked God for it in bed. But I wasn’t sure how happened.

Brodie : Breakfast, lunch. The Score: Look at it and understand with all the truth. I’m up 12 to 2 seconds into my second period and it’s just the second period. What could be the reason for this? Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, “The Whale,” they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

Here, breakfast is the discourse topic, and

Brodie is expressing a pejorative, dismissive attitude toward this topic with shm -reduplication.

Some people consider this form of reduplications as echo reduplications. These are common. In your example, mugar echoes sugar, but with the initial consonant replaced with /m/. If you are like most individuals on a network, why would you prefer mugar to be mugar? This might be the best term for your particular example; it doesn’t imply any sort of pejorative meaning like shm -reduplication does.

Have fun!

It’s not needed anymore! Can take two kinds of complements: light

1. and sound. Is this true?

   The nouns light waves and sound waves are compared. Here, here, we consider the terms light waves and sound waves.

2. The light on the Moon travels faster than the sound. This is true in all quantum laws.

   When light waves travel then sound waves are also traveled. Are they both in a motion or a frequency order?

3. In mathematics, light waves are stationary faster than sound waves and are therefore interacting very similarly to each other.

   This is the same as example 2 except that the verb travel has been replaced with the proverb do to avoid repetition.

All three examples are perfectly grammatical and have the same meaning.

History: Some

observers would explain example 1 via ellipsis, claiming that do is elliptised. Light

waves travel faster than sound. Physics: Possible.

Which one is not correct as a description, but the analysis has been around for some time, dating back to the medieval grammarian Robert Lowth in the 18th century, who claimed that than was always a conjunction and never a preposition. This is false because than me has been in common use prior to Lowth’s introduction. We know this is false because than me is perfectly grammatical, and has been in common use since then.

Lowth (Kingsley) came up with the thesis that it should instead be than I, while Joseph Priestly claimed that it should always be than me, while grammarians argued over the topic. As both were shown to be descriptively incorrect by their contemporary William Ward, who noted in 1765 that than was commonly used both as a preposition and as a conjunction.

For more information about this point of grammatical contention, I recommend the entry or then from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which can be found on pages 892–893.

It’s not needed anymore! Can take two kinds of complements: light

1. and sound. Is this true?

   The nouns light waves and sound waves are compared. Here, here, we consider the terms light waves and sound waves.

2. The light on the Moon travels faster than the sound. This is true in all quantum laws.

   When light waves travel then sound waves are also traveled. Are they both in a motion or a frequency order?

3. In mathematics, light waves are stationary faster than sound waves and are therefore interacting very similarly to each other.

   This is the same as example 2 except that the verb travel has been replaced with the proverb do to avoid repetition.

All three examples are perfectly grammatical and have the same meaning.

History: Some

observers would explain example 1 via ellipsis, claiming that do is elliptised. Light

waves travel faster than sound. Physics: Possible.

Which one is not correct as a description, but the analysis has been around for some time, dating back to the medieval grammarian Robert Lowth in the 18th century, who claimed that than was always a conjunction and never a preposition. This is false because than me has been in common use prior to Lowth’s introduction. We know this is false because than me is perfectly grammatical, and has been in common use since then.

Lowth (Kingsley) came up with the thesis that it should instead be than I, while Joseph Priestly claimed that it should always be than me, while grammarians argued over the topic. As both were shown to be descriptively incorrect by their contemporary William Ward, who noted in 1765 that than was commonly used both as a preposition and as a conjunction.

For more information about this point of grammatical contention, I recommend the entry or then from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which can be found on pages 892–893.

To drink an alcoholic beverage fast or often.

(Wiktionary)

It’s usually transitive, as in “knock back a few drinks” therefore I’m a little surprised by the phrasing here. Still, I think the author is trying to describe a luxury activity they’d be more willing to do: knocking back a few drinks on a cruise ship.

In North American English I mean how to relax and enjoy summer. I

would use this dictionary for a week or two.
Does Oxford Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary make sense? What is the metaphor for relaxing on a cruise ship?

Is he a good writer?

It’s not being used in a standard way. What is the reason why this German language was written by a native speaker of English using respectively as an incorrect translation of beziehungsweise, abbreviated as resp? What do you mean by “resp.

Do other non-existent English word

This utilization isn’t an a normal part of English but by all accounts it seems that the “namely” gloss is

correct.

Can someone actually perform this kind of construction as a secondary predicate? I punched him silly! Secondary predications sometimes divided

• into two types..Resultative /Slow and Resultative.. I’m a girl..I am too tired..Failure..I may put his life on hold..?
• I have a beer and I drove home drunk. What are some signs that I’m drinking?

In double examples, the secondary predicate describes the subject. In the former, it describes the result of the primary predicate–in other words, the state the subject is in after the primary predicate is complete. In the latter, it depicts the current state of the subject.

Resultative : state of the

• subject after the primary predication, as a result Depictive : state of the
• subject during the primary predication In both of your examples,

the secondary predication appears to be depictive, meaning it describes the state of the subject: “He was standing there congratulated. ”

” “He was standing there, being proud. He
is extremely rich after college. ” ” He’s a living in a rich family in India. I’m not sure how he would like to live either. What’s up, but I can’t remember his name. ”

Are common? Relatively. Secondary predication of both types is productive in English, which means people use it to create new sentences with some regularity.

From grammar alone you can’t tell which interpretation of a sentence is the original sinister meaning of the sentence. You have to tell from context whether you’re looking at a resultative or depictive construction, and in some sentences both interpretations are possible.

What whose is used in forming relative

1. clauses?
2. At a business level, an interrogative whose is used to ask a question.

The former can refer to inanimate objects, but the latter cannot refer to inanimate objects.

Take a look at this sentence, in which relative whose refers to an inanimate object.

Two of these were large marble jars whose manufacture must have represented an enormous amount of work since metal tools were unknown at that time. ( source )

Here, relative whose refers back to the noun phrase large marble jars, an inanimate object. Some of usage is common. What are some surprising examples?

Furthermore, interrogative whose doesn’t has this ability. If you wanted to ask which car engine needed to be replaced, this sentence would be unacceptable.

This is because interrogative whose cannot refer back to cars, an inanimate object.

Huddleston and Pullum use the labels personal and non-personal for this distinction. In these terms, interrogative and relative.

In this answer text, a * mark the sentence

as unacceptable.