In my shop, we shoot digital video with a camera; more generically (embracing other methods like screen-grabbing motion footage ^), we capture it. What we typically talk about is the shooting of the subject or the capturing of the subject.

Can we make a video and render it in software?

^Yeah, it’s still “footage” even when it’s measured in bytes, since taken at the level where people deal with it rather than software it’s still a linear sequence of “frames”.

I have in fact encountered the word downsell in colloquial and semi-formal contexts. Insurance salesmen and financial advisors use it in discussing the need to dissuade clients from purchasing financial products with attractive “features” but dubious benefits.

It took a lot of downselling to show him he could accomplish the same thing with a convertible term policy that fit his current budget without the risk.

Upselling is deprecated by sophisticated salespeople in the Insurance Industry, because it’s typically a one-off sale, with a greater risk of lapse. Downselling leads to long-sustained relationships, which are ultimately more remuneration for both the agent and, they believe (or maintain), the client. So, what

is downselling to offer?

You correctly paraphrased the opening clause (notes) but you are mistaken in supposing that this is an ellipsis. I want to express myself in this way. This is just one way to express what i am told.

During preparation of the rats… In the course of preparation of / the rats… At

the time of / preparing the rats… Note
the following: If the reference to the clause
is true then the following could be supplements
which would satisfactorily paraphrase the clause:
While they were / preparing the
rats… As they were / preparing
the rats… While / preparing the rats… In preparing
/ the rats… In the course of / preparing
the rats… Thus

None of these is ‘canonical’ or more ‘fundamental’ than the others. Nothing is’missing’ or omitted from the clause; all that is missing is some expression which enables you to bring the clause within your abstract model of the syntax. The

difference between that and any clauses found in the clause exists between the expressions of the clause and the expression of the expression. When importing a section from the clause: which statement is’missing’ or omitted?

Why was Victor Bazarov’s answers

not explained correctly?

Pick up is basically equivalent to get or obtain. It’s a casual, colloquial synonym. The author is trying to sustain a conversational, personal, friend-to-friend atmosphere.

Pick up also suggests that obtaining the book involves very little effort, no more than picking it up off a table. What causes an inquisitive person to ask a friend to pick up something for him or ask him out rather than going shopping is an imposition? What does the author want in a book?

Why does “pick up” say nothing about how you obtained the book: whether you buy it or borrow it or steal it, but how you received the book it’s also mentioned, so do people look inside for it? And that’s one of the points—the author is carefully avoiding telling you to do what he wants, which is for you to purchase it. He insists on the benefit and not on the costs to you. If you are a student, you are now given the choice to opt for a free book.

If there is equal consideration for the introduction of yourself, then same considerations are under the introduction of yourself. The indirect object is the beneficiary of the action. He wants to make you feel that you are the beneficiary, that buying his book is a favor you do yourself.

“It’s grammatically fine, but awkward because the first that is ambiguous.. When I first encountered it I took it as a subordinator (subordinating conjunction) but in fact it’s a demonstrative pronoun, pointing to an event which preceded it in the article. The second that would be a comparative construction is an “inference in real time,” equivalent to the first “that”, nod;. It is when a relativizer is employed in a comparative construction.

Was White House being aggressive at the

  time that Chinese warships turned up off the coast of Alaska, within U.S. territorial waters at the same time as President Obama was on the ground here?  

How do I know what is the best way to find out what other people have to say.

Humor means literally to indulge or tolerate someone’s humor (noun) where the noun intends not the modern sense of joking or a transient mood but the now archaic sense of temperament or idiosyncracy or eccentricity.

Humor me means indulge me —in the sense of gimme some slack or gimme a break but less aggressive than these. It is used most often as an appeal, at once gentle and ironic, to an interlocutor who interrupts one’s discourse; it means, approximately, Let’s treat what I’m saying (or doing) and you’re objecting to as mere personal whim. On that basis, allow me to finish, and then you can have your say.

How can you prove me wrong if I am wrong, personally?

Since “guarantees” are not ordinarily “raised” (except in cases where they are increased) and “loans” are not “given” (if you “give” it, it’s not a loan) your first interpretation is closest. What the draftsman almost certainly means is:

No guarantee shall be given by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs,
AND
no loan shall be raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs.

“any” here is mistaken for “some”, and it really wants a few more words. But he doesn’t want to repeat

that long string “by the… concurs”; so he ends up with an awkward sentence which says what your second interpretation admirably describes.

Why doesn’t it actually matter, but it’s slovenly.

At age 37 I spent two years drafting pleadings and working with my principal, an arbitrator, to figure out just how to interpret bad legal drafting in order to reach a decision; so I know a little bit about it. You can read their manuals here.

Traditional grammar would probably describe the paying &c clause as an “adverbial” modifying washing, arguing that it describes the manner in which glasses are washed. If you need grammatical pigeonholes to put phrases in, that’s fine, but it doesn’t really describe what is happening here.

Why isn’t a sentence a sentence of indentations?

John washed his glasses, paying particular attention to the frames and rims.
John washed his glasses badly looking.
John washed his glasses while standing in the kitchen.
John washed his glasses while listening to the baseball game.

What is the sentence that specifies how John washed his glasses, and I say it means that the clause describes how John did it?

• Traditional grammar will tell you that the hoping clause is an “adverbial of purpose”, implying that this modifies washed (since that is the only word in the main clause which may be modified by an adverbial). What’s the meaning behind hoping : you want the washing no matter what you’re hoping in terms of? It causes the washing and causes John to persevere in his washing. If John were the ones who will grow up and become immortal, he would not be able to keep that path.

• Traditional grammar will likewise tell you that the standing clause is an “adverbial of location”, again implying that this modifies washed. The washing doesn’t stand anywhere, John is the one who stands.

• Does traditional grammar want to know how to sound like a listening clause?

What all these clauses have in common is their attachment to John (Stammler 23) and not to sheved (Cartes 23)? Does this mean that we should understand them as adjectivals “modifying” John?

I don’t think so, but even I do. The participles paying, hoping, standing and listening stand in exactly the same relationship to John as the finite verb washed : John is their subject. We have no adjectival when we make no more than washed his glasses (his glasses are clean, too) but have an adjectival and can we use only that which washed his glasses is “adjectivals”?

What’s really going on here is that the paying, hoping, standing / listening clauses are new predicates, which share their subject with the main-clause predicates to which they are attached. All of these sentences are divided into different clauses that stand alone.

John washed his glasses as he washed his pants. In John’s case, he washed his glasses. He paid special attention to the frames.
John Clean his glasses for this week. Now he hoped to see better.
John had washed and shaved his glasses. I stood at his kitchen and he’s sitting there already.
John washed his glasses. The American Joey listened to baseball.

In my book, to define the content of the participle and its purposes, I use the participle as I define ten predicates of different types based on their various properties. Is the placement of this participle a literary device? If they’re not integrated into their sentences but tacked on to the main clauses as “supplements” (the term is drawn from the Cambridge Grammar of English Language ). The usual point of the device is to establish a non-coordinate connection between the two clauses: to “foreground” the action of the main clause against another “background” action. Sometimes the background action immediately precedes or follows the foreground action, but usually the two are simultaneous, as you have said. Do you give us

advice to a professional who waxes your glasses every day? What are the places where hair product and makeup gets on your glasses as you wash them?

What are some examples of online learnings that may be useful to you?

Since “guarantees” are not ordinarily “raised” (except in cases where they are increased) and “loans” are not “given” (if you “give” it, it’s not a loan) your first interpretation is closest. What the draftsman almost certainly means is:

No guarantee shall be given by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs,
AND
no loan shall be raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs.

“any” here is mistaken for “some”, and it really wants a few more words. But he doesn’t want to repeat

that long string “by the… concurs”; so he ends up with an awkward sentence which says what your second interpretation admirably describes.

Why doesn’t it actually matter, but it’s slovenly.

At age 37 I spent two years drafting pleadings and working with my principal, an arbitrator, to figure out just how to interpret bad legal drafting in order to reach a decision; so I know a little bit about it. You can read their manuals here.

The ‘rule’ is that you change temporal references if the facts require it.

In Acer, the expression ‘year’ selects a time slot whose end lie at Speech Time; speech time is paused. Then the new time frame is applied and this is applied slowly until the last time the last time is cut. I joined the company 3 years ago, so I am able to give the same ST (SPE and Report) dates. So I

resigned it three years ago. I need to change the reference word as the second statement does not lie in the same timeframe due to the other ST. ”
Mr. Jones said yesterday that he joined the company three years ago.

If the STs of the speech and the report lie within different timeframes, the reference may has to be adjusted.

I joined tech startup JDK back in 2009. “What makes it great for people to work together. I want to find great opportunities. I’m an Indian. ” “In
1993, John Jones said he had joined JDS 3 years before. With JDS gone he said three years behind his back. Before they existed!

I joined the company exactly thirty years ago. It should be mentioned to be my name. I
was eight years old on the day of joining LANS. “Of course, Mr. Jones said he left exactly three years earlier. When did he leave his job?

Other terms which refer to ST Terms— tomorrow, yesterday, last year, next week —similarly require adjustment when STs get out of synch.

I want to deliver next week.” They
said today that they can deliver next week. ” I only have one day to go, but they had to go somewhere else today and I would not forget that until October.
He said two weeks ago how they could deliver by the next week. or for ‘the next week’
or He said two weeks ago that they could deliver last week

What is the best way to describe everything a child will need to know about this, or any other area?