To infer is to extract from a proposition or text, by what we call inference, a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit.

So, my inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP’s sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended not infer but imply, which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not literally there but implicit.

To infer is to extract from a proposition or text, by what we call inference, a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit.

So, my inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP’s sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended not infer but imply, which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not literally there but implicit.

Why do you have to excuse me while explaining “You have to excuse me” from the phrase, it is a fixed phrase etc. It needs to be very clear and mean nothing if you are really saying something.

Can you explain/explain why it is said so? According to evolutionary theory, most of these expressions are typically fossilized from earlier very formal usage, and often “eroded” (stuff that was worn down to the point that their literal meaning has vanished) over time. Is the usage of the expression, which causes no confusion, important?

“Excuse me”, for instance, is not a demand, as its imperative form implies, but a request, worn down from something like “I ask that you excuse me for interrupting you” in which I usually don’t have the best intentions. In

your example, Papa is being extra polite; perhaps he feels that a simple “Excuse me” is a little too abrupt, so he extends the expression. His extension does not mean “You are required to excuse me”. “You’ll have to” is understood as if it were an eroded version of something like “I regret that circumstances put you in the unpleasant position of having to excuse, &c. I will not lie.” ”

” Is it true that everyone of you know how to “get it right”?

Two ancient (literally – one root is Latin, the other is English) metaphors here. I mean the two symbols mean the same for the two syllables used in the dictionary.

Where do you stand, which is where you are located or situated – your “situation”, metaphorically extended from your physical to your mathematical location.

The other is “regard”, which derives from a word meaning “protect”, hence “watch over”; so “with regard to” means “with regard to” (As the metaphor implies) – the same metaphor lies behind “with respect to”, derived from a Latin root meaning “see”.

So: Run tests and look at your metrics to find out what your situation is.

As Edwin Ashworth says, the tendency among current grammarians is to call away in this sort of context ( give away, put away, send away) a ‘particle’.

What is the moral significance of the new catchall trashcan term?

I suggest that these ‘particles’ are in fact intransitive prepositions—prepositions who stand alone, without obliques, and thus constitute in themselves preposition phrases.

Whereas away is a preposition phrase in ancient Greek, as in similar terms like aboard, adrift, aground, ahead, aloft, all is worn down form of an = ModE “on”. Many modern intransitive prepositions have preserved their prepositions more discernibly ( downhill, upstairs, overhead, underfoot ), others have even collapsed their prepositions into their obliques ( home, east ).

This is I think clearly justifiable with verbs of motion and caused motion, where away plays the same syntactic role as ordinary preposition phrases. (place her) Go to London/away, put it on the table/away. The occurrence with give is only a little more opaque; Goldberg, Constructions, 1995, notes the very close affinity between ditransitive constructions, which usually allow the Recipient to be realized as PP rather than an IO (“dative alternation”), and caused-motion constructions. What are the most common conjugations for giving (give, give back, give off, give over, give over, give up ). Note that there are transitive uses for these prepositions, of which many are employed both with and without direct objects.

Why is always-intransitive preposition a locative complement of give, as in a totally conventional choice of direction or (indeterminate) goal of the gift.

1. Get on board means to see and enter a vehicle such as a ship (the original sense), a train or a bus. Here it is used figuratively to mean that these designers started working on the internet, thought about as a vehicle carrying many people into new territory.

2. Yes, this sentence has two VPs with the same subject NP. The two VPs are fairly long, but the structure is good. John went to McDonald’s and ate lunch. …….

Why should people buy a car?

Here is the translation of German text. As pointed out in the comments, I think it is a bad translation. Can you spell downed or tempted?

s syntax enough to get a nice idiom? The second old meaning of who is “who stole my purse” is Iago’s line in Othello, “Who steals my purse steals trash”

Whoever co-signs for someone else

is being tempted by Satan. Well, what are some.?

I’m looking for a headline so I can leave out the most important part to nip and print this in a larger font. The shutdown

shines a harsh light on a rift in the GOP.

How do you indicate that you understand what is meant by shutdown?

To shine a light on something means to make it more visible or visible. Harsh light is a figure of speech from painting and photography: lighting is described as harsh when it exposes and draws attention to unpleasant features of the subject instead of blurring and “softening” these features.

Is rift a tear? Can it be explained? It is in these instances used figuratively to represent a fundamental division of opinion among members of the party.

So:

The shutdown exposes a distressing division in opinion among Republicans .

How is a new person called?

I have a client who operates a couple dozen oil processing plants. After being told that the enterprise as a whole is an enterprise, the definition of the enterprise is system.

In their case, however, it actually is a system, integrated both horizontally and vertically. All the activities of all the facilities’-purchase of raw oilseed, board hedging, crushing, refining, packaging, sales, interstate and international transport, marketing, R&D, personnel, financing–are closely coordinated to align local capabilities and market bases with national and global markets.

So far, Centralization has been confined to a handful of financial functions, and each plant was operationally responsible for its own inputs and outputs, purchases and sales and transport even if the primary supplier or customer was another plant owned by the same corporation. In early 2000s the Centralization industry sprang into full swing; until nearly half of all electricity was sold at the hands of some other supplier. At that time the enterprise might have been better described as a network of related but more or less autonomous production facilities and economic divisions.

And you are half right.

In Crimea, a referendum was held to resolve the war. Could it be the second interpretation of “The

second will refer either to voting (in effect, the entire preceding sentence which voting heads) or to referendum? In this case, ambiguity is trivial, since the voting and the referendum are for all practical purposes the same thing.

If euronews writes Voting underway

in Crimea’s controversial referendum that is widely expected to transfer control more. In this case

that is a relative pronoun, equivalent to which, and there is no ambiguity. What was in the first case an independent sentence is now a relative clause which defines referendum ‘we are talking about the specific referendum which is expected to transfer control.

What you write is: Voting

is underway in Crimea’s controversial referendum. Those are widely expected to transfer control… Here

that is the subject of the verb is expected. As a relative pronoun, it cannot be parsed as a relative pronoun. With untested pronouns, ‘That thing over there’ can only be heard as a demonstrative pronoun, which has exactly the same range of reference as the ‘that thing over there’.

Note that we are not permitted to separate relative that from the NP even with a comma (much less a full stop). Relative in a restrictive relative clause. How to head a relative clause. What is the best way to

look into that?