Regardless of the meaning of a sentence, this is still a complete sentence. If it occurs in the middle of a dialogue, a context in which speakers very frequently shorten their utterances on the assumption that hearers will supply what is missing from what has gone before. On the door of my church was nailed the paw

of a bear that I killed in the spring, finding him on a hillside in the snow, overturning a log with this same paw. “When
was this?” “It
was six years ago, I can’t remember his name right now,” says Ka’s mother. And every time I saw that paw, like the hand of a man, but with those long claws, dried and nailed through the palm to the door of the church, I received a pleasure. If
so what are some of the reasons for pride? “Of
pride of remembrance of the encounter with the bear on that hillside in the early spring. ”
—Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls And here’s the final

sequence with the “missing” parts restored: “….

What was my happiest experience till this morning? Did
you receive a pleasure of pride? I
received a pleasure of pride of remembrance of the encounter… I’ve decided to make out a photo of the reunion. ”

Linguists call this shortening conversational deletion ; John Lawler has discussed it on ELU. What’s a rule in conversational English saying that a speaker can chop off anything at the start of an utterance because it is inferred from context.

When I was a boy in the 1950s the schoolmarms insisted that can must be used only for possibility and ability (your sense 1) and may must be used for permission (your sense 4). What is the sense of use? A friend recently advised me that “the language had already moved past the schoolmarms, and people everywhere in the englisch-speaking world used can in both senses.

After all, this distinction is preserved only when contexts where permission and possibility are

contrasted: No doubt you can drive at 60 mph in a residential neighborhood, but you may not.

In contexts such as that that you provide, there is no contrast between permission and possibility: because the license is issued by a public authority there is no possibility of getting a license unless that authority permits it. Both senses are present in can.

I make my judgments beyond the scope of medical evidence. They don’t have the right to make my own judgments.

Putting together a reasonable quote from a reasonably

authoritative source, Can you safely go back to life during a period of indefinite indefinite remission? Even after Cancer treatment, can cancer cells remain in your body for many years after treatment. What cells in your body have cancer cells? Measuring the survival rate in the first 10 years after treatment for cancer, cans return 10-100% within 3-4 years. Will cancer come back later in life? Opinions vary depending on the disease, but doctors can’t say for sure whether you are cured. Are there any signs of cancer at this time?
Research paper on the nature

and ethics of cancer is not supported against a single study by the National Cancer Institute (US) It appears that medical science can say only that treatment in many cases does not cure cancer. Why don’t cancers recur after treatment or the lifecycle and can you prove to the doctors and patients that the cancer has been removed and cured?

Yes, this was ordinary colloquial English in Shakespeare’s day, although you were rapidly passing thou. How is art of this house created?

Is it asham’d are to look upon this beard?
Is art mad (artistically speaking)?

As th’art a man, Give me a cup. There

was also a contracted form in the indicative: — Ham
Well said; th’art a good fellow — 2HIV
Th’art a tall fellow; hold thee to that drink. TS With

almost flawless spelling, Elizabethan/Jacobean English was as likely to contract the pronoun as the verb. — TS An interesting fact (although just marginally relevant to your question) is that Elizabethan/Jacobean English was as likely to contract the pronoun as the verb be. Our it’s appears as ’tis”. our you’re appears as y’are, and our he’s appears as ‘a’s. “‘a babbled o’ green fields”. Do the apostrophes or the apostrophes get lost in the printed text?

In US colleges these are usually called work-study positions, as are other companies.

What are your first three work studies at front desk?

What are your chances of getting into a good deal of trouble?

No. Ecclesiastical refers only to what pertains to churches generally, or to a church (or the Church) as an institution, or to an ecclesiastic (an officer or minister of the church) or to ecclesiastics generally.

Simony is financial traffic in ecclesiastical office. This is a really nice and interesting role.
In Christian literature, the chasuble is used as an item of ecclesiastical dress.
Rev. Rev. Michael Jackson. Rev. Lord of Lord’s. Rev. Rev. Frank Lloyd Wright. Rev. Isaiah McCown. Rev. Sartorius has been tardy in discharge of his ecclesiastical duties.

But a church may be the specific building or congregation and in this case you would not refer to whatever pertains to it as ecclesiastical. A church board members are not ecclesiastical, a church yard is not ecclesiastical yard and a church porch is not ecclesiastical porch. As this is true, a church member is neither ecclesiastical nor ecclesiastical. What is the beauty

of the 14th century ecclesiastical architecture?

Which are the best ways to market yourself?

Debatable, preposterous, laughable, or contemptible It is very

preposterous (contrary to logic), and contemptible (worthy of contempt, despicable)

that public servants indulge in preposterous and contemptible, extraordinary displays of tastelessness.

What are the difference between skillful and skilled?

Skilled is in origin a past participle, and retains something of that verbal sense: the term is used of a person who has acquired skills (a skilled musician, surgeon, cabinetmaker), or of a calling which requires that its practitioners acquire skills (the skilled trades, the skilled professions ). Where physical skills are in play: a barrister is a little more likely than a solicitor to be described as skilled, because his skills lie in performance before an audience. Many are a big fan of this word ; as a matter of fact.

Skillful may be used similarly, but it may also be used of the works, as skilled may not. We don’t speak of performances or surgeries as being skilled but as skillful : these demonstrate or exhibit the skills which the performers or surgeons possess and which are exhibited in the works. For some reason we don’t often speak of physical objects as being either skillful or skilled ; but we do speak of them as being skilfully made, not skilledly made.

How do I use “shall” and “will” without “must” and “want”?

In many contexts, you can’t; that’s not what those words mean anymore. the history of that word is owing, ought, shall. Shall

• is used when the law is very conservative; and its past-tense form should is often in both present- and past-tense contexts with the oldest recorded sense, which is not must but owed and shall. (You really should read Ulysses this great book ).

• Will may have the sense be willing to in the protasis of a conditional construction, and that sense will spill over to the apodosis ( If you’ll get the beer, I’ll get chips ); and the past-tense form would is still occasionally used in both present- and past-tense contexts with the archaic sense want, albeit mostly in fossilized expressions ( Do what you will, I don’t care ).

If you employ these words in these senses, you could not eliminate future reference because both want and must entail futurity: the obligation and the desire are present at Reference Time, but the actualization of what you want or are obliged to do—the verb complement expressed with an infinitive—necessarily lies at some point after Reference Time.

What’s the etymological fallacy? Why does the Golden Age of English don’t limit the meaning of a word.