Pray you see tomorrow lil' boy, you gon' learn All them pretty bitches leave yo' ass in the earth You ain't sold your last rock, you just been hurt But I pray you see tomorrow lil' boy you gon' learn Pray you see tomorrow lil' boy you gon' learn All them pretty bitches leave yo' ass in the earth You ain't sold your last one you just been burnt But I pray you see tomorrow lil' boy you gon' learn
What does the line "You ain't sold your last one you just been burnt" mean?
I understand the literal meaning but I don't get the point he's trying to imply, considering the previous lines.
Actually, what is the referent of one in that line?
This is not a question about the meaning of "could" and "would". This is a question about which word fits the context.
I got conflicting remarks on my paraphrase of a few sentences. I am not sure which is more valid.
Here is the original text (Note that the issue is about a legislation that wa...
In Russia, every 15th victim of Covid-19 is a medic. This ratio, unseen in any other country, questions the country's overall official death toll, according to a journalist investigation by Mediazona
@CowperKettle I keep saying this. We had a dozen deaths for two dozen cases for quite a while, so the world went crazy with "hahaha they're definitely hiding cases". Eventually, the number of the cases caught up and the mortality ratio is even less than the rest of the world, and they shut up. I'm not gonna go on and assume now they underreported deaths, because this thing is too complicated and too mysterious for such conclusions
@M.A.R. It's different in Russia. Here, every death undergoes a postmortem, and in about 60% of COVID-infected persons who passed away, the doctors decide that the COVID was not the main cause, and so they don't include this person in the COVID statistics.
In some regions, authorities use this to fine-tune deaths and make them lower.
In other regions, with more liberal authorities, some go as far as including all COVID-related deaths in a local statistic report.
Say I got three questions (which I have written down somewhere): Why is A done? Why does A use the XYZ method? and Is the XYZ method suitable for the intended purpose? (something like that). Now, in a summary section I need to mention that I ask 3 questions and try to answer them. But I don't want to state the these questions again. I am wondering if there is a different way to mention them.
For example: "The questions in Chapter 3 address the rationale behind A and the validity of the XYZ method or The questions in Chap 3 inquire into the the rationale behind A and the validity of the XYZ method
Can someone point me to the right direction, pretty please?
"In the introduction, this paper identified three important questions that are of particular interest to social-scientists: (now I need to summarize the 3 questions here after the colon)."
What a mess ... I already restate those questions in the first sentence of each section of the answers - and my supervisor still wants me to re-re-state them
Why are these questions of particular interest to social-scientists?
If you rearrange things a bit, you might be able to talk about them in that context and state them a bit differently
In the introduction, this paper posed three important questions of particular interest to social scientists (full stop). The first two address the rationale... and the third addresses the suitability of ...
I think so, I still feel like there is a better word
but maybe choosing a less perfect word will allow your supervisor to tweak stuff and that will make them less picky about other things
I often gave my reviewers opportunities to contribute that way - spending too much time on the perfect word made it harder for me to accept their criticism of it
"In the introduction, this paper identified three important questions that are of particular interest to social-scientists. In short, what is the rationale behind A, and is XYZ the right method ...?"
"In the introduction, this paper identified three important questions that are of particular ... (where I need to put that summary of questions in) This subsection states these questions and attempts to answer them. The discussion in this subsection is organized into three parts. Because the first two questions are closely related, they are addressed in the first part. The second part addresses the third question,..."
In the introduction, this paper identified three important questions that are of particular interest... In short, is XYZ the appropriate method once we understand the rationale behind A and why method XYZ was chosen?
And maybe instead of "three questions" you could say three ... something
ok improvement works ... I think if I drop the "three" in that sentence, then I am less restricted to exactly mentioning the 3 questions in the "In short ..." part
"As it were" is used for making a description sound less definite and less exact. Collins dictionary defines :
"As it were" means "as if it were really so".
Therefore, both your sentences are ok and denote the same meaning.
This is wrong, right?
@David Kettle has a penchant for using rare words. Aprication is one such word.
phrase of the next 7 minutes ... "know how" knowledge of how to do something smoothly and efficiently : expertise
@userr2684291 What did you think it meant? I find it interesting how often we think we have the same understanding of a phrase like "lip service" as everyone else, but we don't. I read an article about it once that was fascinating.
"... the fund was financed equally by employers and workers, with the government adding a supplementary contribution equal to 20 percent of the combined employer and worker amounts." - is this confusing or is it just me?
@ColleenV I thought it meant something more literal, if you catch my drift. The contexts in which I've been encountering the word could've kinda gone either way (and the general meaning of the utterance wasn't lost since it was mostly about politicians), and I'd never seen it with the verb pay, but rather give, otherwise I'd've looked it up.
I would say the fund was financed equally by employers and workers. The government added an additional 20% of the total
@userr2684291 Ah, easy mistake to make. And, you never know if the people writing the sentences either meant it to be a double meaning, or also had a different understanding of it.
I wish I could remember the details of that article. The author started asking his wife and friends how they understood different idioms and found a surprising amount of variation
Actually I wouldn't write "added an additional" if I thought about it for more than two seconds :/
@ColleenV Probably because they've deviated from their original, un-abbreviated expressions so much they're unrecognizable nowadays. Some words you probably don't recognize the etymological decompositions of because of how they're pronounced, like the word breakfast (my favorite example in these discussions).
I don't find the original phrasing that confusing. It's not confusing as much as it has potential to be overlooked easily and misconstrued, as you did there. I.e., it requires a second parse.
@snailplane CGEL says on p.611 "The symbol ‘†’ indicates that the preposition differs in complementation and/or meaning from current usage of the verb", and they marked barring with it. The OED (2nd ed.) says barring came from "To exclude from consideration, set aside.", with this example sentence among others: We bar, in this discussion, any objection which proceeds, etc., and MW has "to set aside : to not take into consideration": did not bar the possibility of further measures.
The complementation doesn't appear to have changed, and neither has the meaning from the cited (current) usage of the verb.
I'm a bit confused.
I checked Lexico's UK and US dictionaries, and they both contain this definition, so it's not their being BrE-centric (not that I'd ever even think such a thing(!!), but you know).
Wait, maybe I'm wrong about it being an absolute construction...
It's just some kinda adjunct...
"While the missing subject in [4ii] is controlled by the subject of the anchor clause, we also find supplements where it has to be interpreted non-syntactically:" I suppose that's the litmus test for this specific case?
Color me piqued. Or red. Or blue. (@M.A.R. What color does the litmus thing turn when you apply it to this construction? Absolute? That's not a color, don't be silly...)
This is not a question about the meaning of "could" and "would". This is a question about which word fits the context.
I got conflicting remarks on my paraphrase of a few sentences. I am not sure which is more valid.
Here is the original text (Note that the issue is about a legislation that wa...
"As it were" is used for making a description sound less definite and less exact. Collins dictionary defines :
"As it were" means "as if it were really so".
Therefore, both your sentences are ok and denote the same meaning.
Language Overflow
Language Overflow