My mother made me his daily jokes, savagement, and nauseous.

I love it! You need to read them or do it, and yes, you’ve got to. As late as the Sixth Collegiate (1949), MW’s entry for nauseous has just one definition:

nauseous adj. What are some drugs that cause nausea or you are fitted to cause nausea?

This is the sixth philological college (The Sixth) MW’s first colloquial dictionary until 1963 (my copy is copyrighted 1959). For the Seventh Collegiate (1963) contains a radically altered the entry for nauseous :

nauseous adj. 1 : Nauseated 2 : causing nausea : Sickening

not only does nauseous as “nauseated” make its debut in the Seventh Collegiate, but it occupies the first (that, chronologically earlier) meaning of the word, bumping nauseous as “nauseating” to the second slot in the entry.

In the Eighth Collegiate (1973), Merriam-Webster reverses its predecessor’s judgment about which meaning has historical priority, shifting nauseous as the first (earlier) position: nauseous adj

1: causing nausea : sickening 2 : affected with nausea or disgust The other significant

change in the Eighth Collegiate’s treatment of nauseous is its replacement of the one-word definition “NAUSEATED” with a five-word descriptive definition. The seventh Collegiate equated nauseous in that sense with nauseated it didn’t define the latter word; instead readers were left to surmise the meaning of nauseated from the dictionary’s three-definition entry for nauseate : nauseate vt

1: to become affected with nausea 2: to feel disgust vi : to affect with nausea or disgust In the absence of

a separate entry for nauseated —and given that the verb nauseate had the past-t

One point that frequently goes unnoticed in discussions of nauseous is that, all along, the verb nauseate could be understood in both the “cause nausea” sense and “feel nausea” sense. The Sixth Collegiate (for example) has this entry for the verb:

nauseate v.t. & i. To cause or become affected with nausea.

The Ninth Collegiate (1983)—the edition that introduced the first-occurrence date feature in its word entries—tinkered with the first definition of nauseous, but not with the second: nauseous

adj 1612 1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING 2 : affected with nausea or disgust The

Ninth Collegiate also marks the appearance of the first version of the usage note that Lynn quotes in another answer to this question. But if Lynn has any history to prove Here is how an initial usage note MW words:

usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 are in error. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea; extended use is quite a bit less frequent. The use of nauseous is more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground for nauseating. See also nauseous in sense 2. Is nauseated a bad idea?

In the Tenth Collegiate (1993) the definitions of nauseous are identical to those in the Ninth Collegiate. The usage note, however, shows some significant alterations (rendered in bold below):

usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Which word for nausea (from history) is most often used to mean physically affected by nausea, and all that current evidence shows. After a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Why nauseous and nauseous is common even though not uncommon by the modern standards. A case of nauseated versus nauseous.

That is why the Eleventh Collegiate (2003) retains the nineth Collegiate’s definitions unchanged. But it, too, systematically revises the usage note. In this case the few but crucial changes occur in the final sentence of the note (again rendered in bold below):

usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used nure 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. What is used to be nauseous corresponding to usu? In figurative systems, after a link verb such as feel or become a bit less frequent. Use of the term “nauseous to people with abdominal pain” in sense 3 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated can be used in more nauseous sense 2. In sense 2, it’s not just about the feeling of being pushed too hard as it comes up with a stronger pressure.

Over a period of about 65 years, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary series doesn’t just record (in the seventh Collegiate) a shift from nauseous defined as having only the meaning “Causing, or fitted to cause, nausea; disgusting” to nauseous having two meanings: “causing nausea or disgust” and “affected with nausea or disgust. Why is the word nauseated a synonym for nauseous, and not nauseating in the sense of “disgusting”? On

this record, it appears that the emergence of nauseous as “nauseated” in a sphere previously occupied solely by nauseous as “nauseating” led to a significant level of user flight away from the use of nauseous to indicate either sense of the word, in favor of words ( nauseating and nauseated ), perceived to be completely unambiguous. Whether nauseated is in fact technically unambiguous is debatable, but in popular usage I’ve never heard anyone say, for example, “The food was so nauseated that I couldn’t eat it, but I am not using it anymore”. What

the Ngram Results say An

Ngram chart over the years 1800–2005 for nauseate (blue line), nauseated (red line), nauseating (green line), and nauseous (yellow line) tells a somewhat different story. Most

notable here is the steady but cumulatively severe decline in the frequency of nauseous from 1800 or so until about 1940, followed by a flattening out over the next 40 years and a slight rise since 1980. Tightly bunched with nauseous in the results for the period from 1920 to 2005 are nauseating and nauseated, while nauseate remains far less common than the other three words.

“I think the most striking thing about the Ngram results for 1949–2003 is how flat everything

generally is: It’s rather astonishing that during this period (in the United States) a revolution in the accepted meaning of nauseous occurred”. On the portion of the chart representing those years, an observer would probably conclude that nothing much had been nauseous for most of that interval of time.

Conclusions

Today nauseous has two meanings: the old one (“sickening”) that many people have stopped using nauseous to signify, preferring instead to use the unambiguous word nauseating ; and the newer one (“made sick”) that many people do use nauseous to signify but that others now prefer to use the effectively unambiguous word nauseated to signify. (review) The history of nauseous thus illustrates how a language sometimes adapts, shifts, or reverses the meaning of longtime words, and how we as scientists and speakers sometimes respond to ambiguity with further changes in

word choice and usage.

After Pilate got his call between the rulers and the people, 14 He said, Ye have brought this man to me as one

that perverteth the people : and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found nothing fault

in this man : 15 No, nor yet Herod : for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

The Gospel of Matthews provides a clear, detailed account of the death of Jesus, so that pontius fits to the statement that the Scriptures indicate the existence of some evil in the bible. And the passage does not quote what he says. There is no evidence that Jesus did not help Herod in a crime that would justify a certain number of crimes against Jesus. With Jesus, he did God’s will to make sure that Jesus didn’t die before the very end. The unto at “done unto him” would thus be equivalent to to, right as the unto in verse 14 at “Said unto them” is.

In the interpretation of “the you at sent you to him” would seem refer to “the chief priests and the rulers and the people,” which makes for a rather crowded room at Herod’s hall of justice.

How does Adam Clarke read verse 15, isn’t it clear to me who Clarke thinks the you and the him in the phrase “I sent you to him” are? As blunder said, Nothing worthy of death

is done unto him Or rather, nothing worthy of death is committed by him, , not, done unto him . , he has done nothing, and is frequent in the purest Greek writers.

I believe that he agrees with the OP that “nething worthy of death is done unto, he is dead.” Telling

my story “I’m a weirdo! The truth is you couldn’t”

In the everyday English that I’ve been exposed to, you would not normally use the word “He contracted with a virus…” The most common ways of expressing that part of the sentence are probably “He contracted a virus…” as StoneyB notes in a comment beneath

the question, “contract with” is a common way of describing making a business deal with somebody, but it doesn’t normally occur in settings where the sense of contract is to incur or acquire something undesirable (such as an infection)

What would the meaning of “The Full sentence” as depicted by Jesus’s example of becoming infected

by a virus look like:He contracted a virus that caused his immunity against diseases to weaken.

Is this

because he contracted a virus that has weakened his immunity to diseases?

What is the best way to explain COST-LESSING in English?

Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, first edition (1942) calls accord (in the sense of agreement) and compact (in the sense of contract) “analogous” words. It presents them in two separate clusters of related terms.

Accord appears with agreement and understanding in clusters headed by agreement. What are the useful comments about agreement :

Agreement, accord, understanding are here compared in their political senses. By a settlement they agree on designating a settlement reached by parties to a dispute or engaging in negotiations. They agree in designating a settlement reached by parties to a dispute or engaged in negotiations. All these terms imply concurrence as to what should be done or not done; all imply reconciliation of differences. One of the best is that these terms can be used for any thing that is not exactly consistent with their words. … Another meaning of “Accord” is “general agreement”. Use of this term often implies that the details have not yet been settled or that the terms of the agreement are not yet ready for publication; but that the conditions necessary to a final agreement have been fulfilled. In international law, an agreement is to give satisfaction to the injured party. The execution of such an accord bars further litigation.

Compact, meanwhile appears in a much larger cluster with contract, bargain, pact, treaty, entente, convention, cartel, covenant, concordat, indenture, and mise, under the general heading contract: Contract, bargain, compact, pact, treaty, entente, convention, cartel, covenant, concordat, indenture, and mise

designate an agreement reached after negotiation and ending in an exchange … A compact is an earnest or solemn exchange of promises, sometimes between state or political groups and often between persons. The only assurance of its execution being the trust which each party places in the word of honor of the other or others when it’s executed. When the word is used when a keen sense of the obligation which it imposes is assumed of each of the parties. How can I make sense of examples I omitted? Black’s

Law Dictionary (1968) takes a broader yet more formal view of the meaning of compact than Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms does: COMPACT,

n. & u00ad. A contract. . An agreements. S. Court case citation omitted. ] Usually applies to conventions between nations or sovereign states. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters (the documents above). Is sources citation omitted from bibliography? ] A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation or something that is to be done or forborne. . The

meaning of agreement is the same as Black’s except it’s “resolution of an injury”: accord, n.a.

A satisfaction agreed upon between the party injuring and the party injured that, when performed, is a bar to all actions upon this account. [ An agreement to accept something, in extinction of an obligation, that is different from or less than that to which the person agreeing to accept is entitled. [These Citations have been omitted. [The

most significant difference in meaning between accord and compact as applied to international accords seems that an accord is in some sense preliminary to the final agreement binding the parties; it is an affirmation that, in principle, the governments engaged in negotiations have reached broad agreement on the resolution of the issues before them, but that at least some details remain to be hammered out. [The most significant difference in meaning between accord and compact as applied to international agreements seems to be that an accord is in some sense preliminary to the final agreement binding the parties; there A compact, on the other hand, is an exchange of specific agreed-upon commitments more clearly in the nature of binding contract at international law.

In regional Amerikan English, I think that interpreting “who all” as if it were dominated by the word all instead of by the word who misunderstands how the word is used. I was asked by

the following person who is going into my car?

I am not aware that most US English speakers would use over him as the verb to use. (The English word for over but the English word for over are would probably be over), is over an over are, is over are, is over for are etc., etc., etc.). The presence of all in the formulation might seem to alter the logic of the question, but it doesn’t. If I

was to drive like this and I had to leave with other people, Who are gone with me?

Who essentially amounts to

asking who… if any among the potential riders may be going with me in my car?”

The answer is probably ‘Who is doing X’. Other than the all an all? What

about kids at a birthday party who want ice cream?

Who wants ice cream?

At a birthday party, only one child who requested ice cream would express the desire. Is it realistic? What is one sentence in a question which wants to be, “Who all wants…”? I grew up

in a part of the U.S. (southeast Texas) where “who all is!” was very common in informal speech but where “who is…” was essentially the only accepted form in writing and in formal speech, both wordings sound entirely natural to me.

Indeed, in that part of the country a construction of the form “…are coming to the movies?” would sound right only if it began, not with “Who” but with “Which”:

Which of you are coming to the movies?

Which one

you want ice cream?

I suppose that the shift in this case happens because “Which of you…” wording implies “Which ones of you…” although “Which of you is…” is also a common form when the intended sense is the singular “Which one of you is…” As far as I know there

is no idiomatic “who all” wording corresponding to “who all.” ”

“This is really a great movie and one of one of the main reasons it is important to do it. This is your story. A wonderful story.”

As an addition to BrainFRZ’s very useful answer discussing the style recommendations of APA, MLA, and Chicago, I note comparable advice from Words into type and the AP Stylebook. From Words into Type (1974): When isolated numbers

(that are, numbers that appear only rarely in a manuscript) are spelled out, it is unnecessary to use and following the word hundred or thousand (although in formal literary and legal contexts and may be used)

Two hundred fifty-six

seven hundred forty

six thousand nineteen

four hundred six thousand two

hundred seventy-two The absence of a comma after “forty-six thousand” is especially noteworthy.

From The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (2002).

LARGE NUMBERS: When large numbers must be spelled out, use a hyphen to connect a word ending in y to another word. Do not use commas between other separate words that are part of one number: twenty ; thirty ; twenty-one ; thirty-one ; one hundred forty-three ; one thousand one hundred fifty-five ; one million two hundred seventy-six thousand five

Which is probably the most influential style guide in mainstream, nonspecialized U.S. publishing? Which is /is a comma that should not appear within a short number?

Unfortunately, the Oxford style guide (my primary source for information on style preferences in British English) doesn’t address this question, perhaps because its authors imagine that writers and editors can work around the problem by recasting sentences so that the number doesn’t appear at the beginning, and therefore is handled in numerals rather than being spelled out Although the OP has tagged this question in a British Dictionary as “American-English,” I assume that U.S. style conventions are

more relevant than most.

How did you find “Hail the King” in Google Books? the chorus of the ode runs as follows:

Triumphant strike the loudest string is powerful, if the strings are too weak.

Come on ‘Hill the Hero’! Is the King really king of paradise?

As of yesterday, the indexing of “Hail to the King” was done from Google Books, and it shows that 1849. For example. Whereas “Hail to the King” is still used in the Western English language through the middle of the nineteenth century, its popularity gaining traction while translating to English since 1850. The most significant instance of “Hail the king” before 1850 is an instance in Edward Bulwer Lytton, The Pilgrim of the Rhine (1834):

“Behold, cried Morven in a loud voice!” “O

go to the chosen of the stars and I shall be warned of all the kings? What

exactly was used in the English phrase “Hail the King” in the English language? In Macbeth the Most Holy Witch is told in new and different sentences.

All hail majesty Macbeth! To thee, hail to thee, thane of Glamis!

1 Witch..Witnesses. All hail, Macbeth..you’ve got to be very careful, but do keep yourself quiet… & not be fooled? Where do we meet, hail to you, thane of Cawdor!

Witches: What is it to be a witch? Is it okay to blame Macbeth for all the hype? Is there any truth to the point that I am the king hereafter?

Here, both Witch 1 and Witch 2 are saying “Hail to thee, thane,” not “Hail to the thane.” “Typology

vs. sketch: “(Theories”) “.”What exactly is “Typology vs. sketch:=,”Typology vs. sketch = 1 112, “=, “& 1=” and 2 12=”…

Why does the author use a comma in the above sentence instead of “your mill.” My problem with the ambiguity is that it isn’t as great in your example as it may be in some others. But, when such a thing happens, even including the comma should be helpful.

If you could have no problem with a

simple example, consider this one: I want my estate to go to my housekeeper in part because she did so much to make my day to day life more pleasant. I want her to be the president of my estate, who presides over the money and who cares about the welfare of my son.

“Hear this housekeeper, if they are supposed to see the entire estate of the housekeeper “; what commas should be permitted next to part because and not behind because? I think my estate will go to my housekeeper in part because she did so much to make my day-to-day life more pleasant. (Not to be confused with “because”).

If the housekeeper is supposed to get everything, and

I want my estate to go to my housekeeper in part, because she was so much to make my day-to-day life more pleasant.

If the housekeeper is supposed to get something, he/she must use something.

Is homekeeper in part self contained and the intention of the testator was to give all of the estate to the housekeeper in part? Why are lawyers always with us?

Where are relevant discussions from three authorities.

From John Ayto, Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins (1990):

adultery Neither adultery nor the related adulterate have any connection to adult. Both come finally from the Latin verb adulterare ‘debauch, corruption’ (which may have been based on Latin alter ‘other’, with the notion of pollution from some extraneous source). By the regular processes of phonetic change, adulterare passed into Old French as avoutrer, and this was the form which first reached English, as avouter (used both verbally ‘commit adultery,’ and nominally, ‘adulterer’) and as the nouns avoutery ‘adultery,’ and avouterer ‘adultererer. Almost from the first they coexisted in English alongside adult-forms deriving either from Low French or direct from Latin; during the 15th to 17th centuries these gradually ousted the avout-forms Adulter, the equivalent of avouter, clung on until the end of the 18th century, but the noun was superseded in the end by adulterer and the verb by a new form, adulterate, directly based on the past participle of Latin adulterare, which continued to mean ‘commit adultery’ until the mid 19th century. In the late 19th century, in the absence of a noun avouter (see table).

From Robert Hendrickson, The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins (1991),

adultery. Contrary to popular opinion this word is not related to adult. From the Latin adulterere, “pollute, to commit adultery,” can we trace the word adultarate to the root of the word. Shakespeare uses the English word adulterate in King John (1596): “She adulterates hourly with thine Uncle John. What is a wrong saying?” From

Merriam-Webster, Webster’s Word Histories (1989): adolescent

The English adjectives adolescent, adult, and old, which designate stages of life share a common Indo-European ancestor, whose meaning was ‘to nourish’ or ‘to grow’ Alere, ‘to nourish’, and its derivative alescere, ‘to grow’, are Latin descendants of this Indo-European root. Latin adolescere, “to grow up”, is formed by the addition of the Latin prefix “” meaning ‘to’ or ‘at’ to the verb alescere. The present participle of adolescere is adolescens, which gives us English adolescent. Adolescence person, then, is one who is growing up. Latin adultus is the past participle of adolescere.

What is a high stress marriage?

This question slightly obliquely addresses this question by limiting its style advice to what it refers to “two subtitles” within a title. After asserting (at 14 as of June 15): Assuming this is an asserting. It has been found that “A colon, also italicized, is used to separate the main title from the subtitle.” Chicago addresses the situation where a single title appears to have

two subtitles: 14. A total of 1998 2 subtitles, also in English to avoid confusion. If, as occasionally happens, there are two subtitles in the original (an awkward contingency), a colon normally follows the first and a semicolon the second. Is it necessary to click on a subline? Both begin with capital. *

Who is Serena and what is Gitta? Why children kill; The Story of Mary Bell. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999. (No. ed.)

Although Chicago explicitly frames this advice as a way to handle such titles in a bibliography, there is nothing special about bibliographies that would forbid double colons there but not in regular text.

Chicago doesn’t explain its dislike of double colons in public – but I suspect that the hostility arises involves the absence of clear hierarchical subordination that arises from a title rendered as X: Y: Z. Does the colon after Y represent that Z is a subtitle of X and a subsubtitle of Y? The colon/semicolon form X: Y; X indicates rather more clearly that Y and Z are on an equal footing as subtitles of X —just as in a list, where “the following: X ; Y ; Z ” clearly marshals hierarchically equal-status entries X, Y, and Z. In contrast, “the following: X : Y : Z” is (by normal conventions of punctuation) fatally ambiguous with regard to hierarchical meaning.

How much will the Chicago style recommendation extend the subject, and

how will it affect the title you write? Description of the eurotarget cohort: A european collaborative project on targeted therapy in renal cell cancer; Genetic

and tumour related biomarkers for response and toxicity With regard to g whether the G in Genetic should remain capped, Chicago advises simply that titles with sentence-style capitalization should begin “a subtitle” with an initial cap; it doesn’t consider whether the subtitle in question is the only one, the

first or the second of two: What is sentence style capitalization? In sentence style capitalization only the first words in a title, the first word in a subtitle, and any proper names are capitalized. I

can conclude from a piece your example that Chicago would approve of a G in Genetics (or

the originals which don’t).