A star shoots.
I read something like this somewhere. Can this be thought of as a complete sentence? How does one analyze this, grammatically? It looks as though it is missing some phrase. On the other hand we do say shooting star, so it isn't very clear if this is a complete sentence or not.
My point is just that both are grammatical, but we would tend to choose one over the other to communicate different meanings of walk, at least sometimes!
6. to go about on the earth, or appear to living persons, as a ghost:
The murdered grandmother WALKS THE HOUSE TO THIS VERY DAY
I think that would be idiomatic, so to wander.
Wander the streets.
Walk about the streets. Also fine, though, and with the same meaning, generally. It seems to my "ear".
So, do you have a particular issue for some communicative purpose, or are you mainly interested in the wider concept at this point?
(of a tool, pointer, or pen of a recording device, etc.) to glide, slip, or move from a straight course, fixed position, or the like: *A regular drill bit may walk on a plastic surface when you first try to make a hole. When the earthquake started, the pen on the seismograph walked all over the paper.*
He was walking on the sidewalk the other day, and i bumped into him. He was walking the sidewalk the other day, and i bumped into him. He was walking about the sidewalk the other day,........ .
Should i take it that all the above three sentences mean the same.
I suppose that something like the following is in operation:
Most commonly, when we use walk with a direct object, we are taking the object for a walk!
I walked the dogs.
Perhaps, and I'm just theorizing here, we would tend to avoid a similar pattern unless it's somewhat idiomatic: a familiar expression like walked the streets.
When I read "was walking the sidewalks" I get a ?? feeling!
Ha! He walked the streets and He walked about the streets seem to generally have about the same meaning. I think the first would be more common because it's earned a reputation as a somewhat set phrase.
Of course, situation would usually provide a lot of information to guide our interpretation and our choice of constructing messages.
@V.V. Hi
There is an idiom: "to walk the line". I think someone on a language forum has defined it well:
I learned to play in the late 1990s. I bought a multimedia learning course on a CD, and went as far as "Take Five", but not as far as to play chords to accompany singing. (0:
Then I learned to read music notation and memorized four or five simple pieces for the piano. That was all. (0:
If someone is just a user in ELL, will they be notified if I ping them in here? Is there a way to invite someone to chat beyond using a comment on a post?
@JimReynolds, I 'd rather not answer that question because it's not interesting. The expression just coincides with that in my language, so I even don't have to consult a dictionary. But the other guy mentioned something about the structure which deserves more attention.
It isn't -I meant.
I left comments only because I thought they would close the question and the poor asker would never know what it meant.
There are ____ beautiful flowers, wish I could have brought camera
Answer options given:
many
so
such
all
My Approach:
b) to show extreme feelings or an opinion about something I have used such rather than so because so is used to show fact (usually with a result or con...
Though I didn't downvote (yet), I don't think this question fits ELL, and perhaps it's better to be posted at a stack or a discussion forum that is specific to that ORM software. IMHO, the programmer (whoever wrote that piece of code) overlooked something. — Damkerng T.23 secs ago
People shouldn't believe anything a piece of software tells them more than themselves, whether that piece of software is deterministic or stochastic.
(Yes, I mean all grammar checkers out there, too.)
When I have a chance, I sometimes look into the inside of such code, to see how things work. It's like "show me your guts", and most of the times I find myself thinking (about that code), "your guts are not that great".
So, I'd say we should be aware of the limits, how far we can trust them those codes.
Excuse my ignorance for not coming up with a punny title unlike many meta posts about tags, but I'm a native speaker of Persian/Farsi and I just noticed that both the tags persian and farsi exist and I have no clue why.
"Persian" is the English translation of "Farsi". (The article proceeds to dr...
In my humble opinion, some software and programming related problems are (human/natural) language-specific. In other words, questions tagged with a (human/natural) language tag are not necessarily unhelpful. — Damkerng T.1 min ago
So well, for the case of Farsi and Tajiki and Dari, it's like three dialects that now have changed a bit so they're not as distinct as three languages, but are not as close as two dialects either.
So I can completely understand an Afghani (usually their leader talks and stuff aren't translated at all when aired on our shows) but I'll prolly die laughing at him @Dam.
You are right: "If this had been full, that would have been really badass" is the standard way of expressing what is meant here, and that is the use you should employ. But in Real Life Conversations people don't pay as much attention to these things as we do on paper. Moreover, the whole system of realis/irrealis expression appears to be in the middle of what may turn out to be very far-reaching change. — StoneyB10 hours ago
"If this were full" is a use of the subjunctive mood to express unreality (It isn't [N.B. present tense] full but if it were). You would not say "It isn't full but if it was". However, "If this were full, that would have been really badass" is wrong. It should be "If this were full, that would be...
I didn't expect that...
"If this were full, that would have been really badass" sounds perfectly natural to me.
@tchrist After watching the clip, I think "If this were full, that would have been really badass" is perfectly natural, but "If this had been full" is probably more technically correct.
The verb SHOOT, meaning "to move very fast" - for example like a star across the sky - has a different grammar from the SHOOT meaning "to fire a gun".
SHOOT meaning "to move very fast" requires a Locative Complement telling us something about the place the thing is shooting to. This means the v...
this is really strange that this got downvote :O
Let's decrease the number of down-votes. :-) I actually agree with this answer.
> And lo ! the joy that cometh with the morning, Brightly victorious o'er the hours of care ! I have not watched in vain, serenely scorning The wild and busy whispers of despair ! Thou hast sent tidings as of heaven. -- I wait The hour, the sign, for blessed flight to thee. Oh ! for the skylark's wing that seeks its mate As a star shoots ! -- but on a breezy sea We shall meet soon. -- To think of such an hour !
> Great fire-balls darted across the firmament leaving luminous trains, while others seemed stationary for a long time. Scientists and others who ... Not a star shoots nor a sparrow falls without his knowledge.
In another answer it refers to some dictionary usages. And there also it says the verb when used intransitively should have some prepositional or adverbial complements.