The OED had content as noun as early as the 1500s: 1526

• Pilgr. Is Perf. (W.I. ). Perf De W. 1531) 6 b, All this worlde with the contentes in the same.
• 1547 Boorde Brev. Healthy lxxiii. Is Yf a fat lyke to doo lyke as heres were chopped in it.. 18 Is Yf in a urine doo appere a lyke?

Though, your particular sense might be the one first shown in 1901:

• 1901 Chemist & Druggist LVIII. 18 There is no evidence that altitude affects the esters in lavender oil.

There are also earlier uses, but that can be the best match for you.

• Is it possible to describe this Bible as the title of the Great Book of the Bible? | The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the content of all the holy Scrypture, both of ye olde and new testament
• Is there a royal or a royal or a royal from 1594 Plat Jewell-ho? , Diuers chim. Concl.. What are some of the features of Concl.. 28 A glasseof some greater content.
• Is he a horse? Does the horse exist in “Little or Big” 1660? I have 35 schol. I am a matricula. The area of the rectangle.
• 1863 Huxley n 16th place Nat. 1863 Huxley n 14th place 1901. 77 The most capacious Gorilla skull yet measured has a content of not more than 3412 cubic inches.

How can we help to improve our community?

The dialect was the Northern dialect of the people of Northern England. The nowt spelling is from the North of England or further further. Who is referring to the current spelling you find earlier? According to Wikidiction, naught means nothing other than nought etc. So all signs and letters do match it. (*) and pronounced /nat/, have been around since Middle English & Modern English.

Nowt ( Uncountable) (

Northern England, Sussex ) Naught, nothing.

In a Geordie Proverb, shy bairns get nowt.

Consider:

• dauntlessly
• self-assuredly
• intrepidly
• determinedly
• purposefully
• drivingly
• decisively
• firmly
• assuredly
• enthusiastically
• fervently
• persistently
• unremittingly
• zealously
• ardently
• animatedly
• But

I like the last name of the preposition just fine, and don’t see any real need to replace it with an

adverb.

The word immaculate, as in immaculate conception means immaculate. Per OED, the term means Free

from spot or stain, pure, spotless, unblemished, undefiled. In fig. senses.

What are some facts about the situation in the Philippines?

Western society does not have explicit castes, and even notional/nominal class is tied to education and profession more than to birth. Is it politically correct to talk about political things?

If you are talking about somebody who’s nobody special, you might try for average Joe or Joe Everyman. Is it wrong to label a member of the masses a non-Muslim?

Why would a lowlife (irregular plural lowlifes instead of * lowlives) be a civilly correct person. Inspecting a thesaurus will lead to countless synonyms of such good-for-nothings and scoundrels.

Similar queries can be constructed if you are more interested in focusing on them as uneducated and uncultured know-nothings on the one hand, or on the other, as the poor unfortunates and related do-nothings who make up the unproductive non-working class, sometimes called the permanent underclass. In earlier times, and perhaps even now, these unscrupulous cads were also called stick-at-nothing ( or “a false, lying, swindling, underhand, stick-at-nothing brute”), for which the OED gives the example “.. If

there is any connection to be found here amongst these pejoratives, it is the “nothingness” link connecting good-for-nothing, do-nothing, know-nothing, and stick-at-nothing.

There is no real difference that would be recognized and respected by all readers and translators and not only.

What are your views on separating the two? If it is 6 o’clock in the morning, then yesterday could refer to any time you went to bed for the night during the previous day, including for example 6 at night.

By different standards, said an hour ago would be more apt to refer to a time close to exactly 24 hours earlier, so 6 in the morning again.

This is different from today’s time.

When you hear someone referring to the maritimes, which is clearly a noun plural form, they are actually referring to the Canadian maritime provinces. Where are the Maritime Provinces in the northwestern Canadian provinces

of Nova

Scotia, Tallahassee,

Cascadia, and Prince Edward

Island?

How do folks talk about Facebook?

I don’t like this second use of spiritual. I’m a

total loser. It’s not Passive.

The list here refers to the expression object–verb–subject (OVS) which is not subject–verb–object (SVO). Why do people not approve of Spiritual second

second use as the same grammatical structure as saying.

When the subject is still I in both cases, it does not change to usage just because usage happens to be in front. If I were an object you would be me, and it’s not.

Can we take a sentence like:

The dog bit the boy?

And reverse it with a tensed inflection of be plus the original verb’s past participle with by and the old subject as an object of that preposition:

The boy was bitten by the dog.

If passive voice is considered passive then passive voice is considered passive. Merely placing the object in the first position isn’t sufficient to be passive voice.

I don’t like this second use of spiritual. I’m a

total loser. It’s not Passive.

The list here refers to the expression object–verb–subject (OVS) which is not subject–verb–object (SVO). Why do people not approve of Spiritual second

second use as the same grammatical structure as saying.

When the subject is still I in both cases, it does not change to usage just because usage happens to be in front. If I were an object you would be me, and it’s not.

Can we take a sentence like:

The dog bit the boy?

And reverse it with a tensed inflection of be plus the original verb’s past participle with by and the old subject as an object of that preposition:

The boy was bitten by the dog.

If passive voice is considered passive then passive voice is considered passive. Merely placing the object in the first position isn’t sufficient to be passive voice.

I don’t like this second use of spiritual. I’m a

total loser. It’s not Passive.

The list here refers to the expression object–verb–subject (OVS) which is not subject–verb–object (SVO). Why do people not approve of Spiritual second

second use as the same grammatical structure as saying.

When the subject is still I in both cases, it does not change to usage just because usage happens to be in front. If I were an object you would be me, and it’s not.

Can we take a sentence like:

The dog bit the boy?

And reverse it with a tensed inflection of be plus the original verb’s past participle with by and the old subject as an object of that preposition:

The boy was bitten by the dog.

If passive voice is considered passive then passive voice is considered passive. Merely placing the object in the first position isn’t sufficient to be passive voice.