I often come across this phrase "Bite me" in many TV shows. What does it mean and is there a specific context in which this phrase can be used?
Thanks!
Veekay
His answer now deleted was that Schmidt was not a German word at all. He apparently looked it up in dic.... and forgot to also look it up in the white pages.
I have a job, for which some people are responsible, say: a, b, c, d and e. If anyone does the job, it is marked as complete.
Now let us say c completed the job, so what would I call that person in one word (think completor - not a word).
It is basically for a database schema for a table of tas...
Well, "This is why we can't have nice things" predates 4chan by at least several decades. It is the lament of the parent whose children rupture the membranes (and destroy the furniture) of their environment.
If it's a single item you could "void the item" as well.
"Void and invalidate are often used interchangeably as they both mean to make null or worthless (: void a legal document by tearing it up; invalidate a check by putting the wrong date on it)." NOAD
I think invalidate would work there as well, come to think of it.
@AlainPannetier I saw that particular answer from 3rdI. He had already made it clear he didn't know any German. He didn't know what "unglaublich" meant? I was thinking the same as @Billare about trollish behavior.
Calm down guys, accomplisher is just a synonym for finisher, according to the OED: “One who accomplishes; who carries out, completes, perfects; a finisher or perfecter. 1611 Cotgr., Parfaiseur, a perfecter, accomplisher, finisher. ”
Guys, guys. I can't help but notice that none of you have consulted the Urban Dictionary and fed its results to NGrams. You are so off the mark, jeez. I mean, like, do you promise to improve or should I just ban you?
@Robusto, @Vitaly. I've got this as well in my e-version of the OED: One who accomplishes; who carries out, completes, perfects; a finisher or perfecter.
That's the one that comes with 20 volume hardback.
(I'm French-native-speaker)
I'm not sure in wich cases if the french expression "vue de l'esprit" should be used or not. Are there any general cases/rules?
For example I have a blog post title that I'm thinking in french as "Vue de l'esprit : [a game name]" because the post is about some drawin...
So, I was like, why does everyone say like and so in every sentence? Where did this trend come from, like, what started it, and is it actually grammatically correct to like, insert like into our speech in just about any position in a sentence?
Reward for anyone who can tell me the cause of its...
So like, I had this teacher? And he's like, "You're late?" And I'm like,
"There's like other people late too?"
I've always cringed at the word "like" strewn about in a spoken sentence. Well now I've seen it in print, right in the middle of an otherwise articulate National Geographic articl...
Possible Duplicate:
Is Valley Girl speak like entering the language?
Please can you explain the origins of where the annoying over-use of the word "like" came from?
Does this have anything to do with Facebook?
Example:
Logan is so, like, stupid when he says, like, anything!
He'...
@RegDwight - Ayup. Coach/coche/etc. all come from the Hungarian "kocsi", which in turn is formed from the placename Kocs + the locative particle -i. Originally, "kocsi" was used as an adjective -- kocsi szekér = wagon from Kocs.
@Martha and @RegDwight which reminds me of the etymology of bus and omnibus (the wikipedia etymology is I believe the correct one (etymonline has another one)). It is also a place name in the city of Nantes.
I corrected the student, saying that he should write "How much water do you use to take a bath?" because his sentenced seemed unnatural to me. Do you consider it correct? Would you use it?
> The article investigates the high-frequency collocations I think and I don’t know as markers of stance-taking by native and non-native speakers of English in L1 and English as lingua franca (ELF) interaction.
What do they mean is included in L1? Conversations between a native and a non-native speaker?
Well one of the answers quotes a definition from a dictionary, if the OP disagrees with a dictionary definition (which is based on how people actually use the phrase “renewable energy”) in this case, then English usage isn't likely the meat of his question
This looks like a case of asking a question to which the asker already knows the answer, which is not forbidden per se, but it needs to be phrased so that it's still useful to the site. The increasingly-political comments are making it less and less useful to the site.
> The sentence "your dog is yellow" means just that, "your dog is yellow". Even if your dog is in fact lilac; even if it's actually my dog; even if none of us owns any animals to begin with — that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. At all. Likewise, "everything is constantly changing" means "everything is constantly changing". Whether or not you agree with that statement is out of scope of this site. But you can always commit to the Philosophy proposal.
4
Same about "renewable".
We can only tell you what the word actually means, not whether it has a right to mean that.
Besides, I don't find it appropriate to use a political term if you want to describe a source of energy in a neutral way. We don't call fossil fuels "useful energy" either.
if only the Greenies had sat in front of a thesaurus for 10 seconds before naming the energy. mind you, they'd have to have a rudimentary understanding of science first, and these are the people lobbying for an end to nuclear power worldwide whilst simultaneously lobbying for a transition to electric cars.
If you want a positive word to describe solal, wind, and water power, why not focus on concrete things that are positive about them, instead of a vague word; what about "non-polluting"?
i just wish they'd stick to that and not say renewable. i think they like renewable because they can exclude nuclear. honestly, their opposition to nuclear has become a ludicrous holy war for them. when i see those people marching in Germany, i am sad.
Well, if it is the fact that solar, wind, and water do not require substances we have a limited amount of, they have something of a point. The protests do seem a bit rash, though.
maybe it's good for some countries to go down the nuclear route, and some the non-nuclear. in 30 years we'll see which is better. my suspicion is it will be the nuclear route and Germany will have had a rethink.
Consider the rising food and oil prices of the past few years. I didn't notice a thing; in the third world, wars have broken out, revolutions, starvation.
Yes, but the still moderate rises of the past few years have led to very specific conflicts.
Just as America feels the rising oil prices much stronger: Europe is ahead both with taxes and efficiency; in America, everybody needs fuel, and the price rise was significant, because it was very inexpensive compared to here; in Europe, prices rose by perhaps 15%? That hardly keeps us lying awake at night...
The huge problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste. We do not currently have any safe way of disposing of it. I.e. it's not that we have limited safe places/ways to dispose of it; we have absolutely no safe place to put it. We just have less-unsafe-than-that-other-idea places.
That is a valid argument; but it bugs me that some people will just stop at that and refuse to consider any other arguments for or against. Other energy sources have considerable disadvantages as well.
In the most respected newspaper of my country, which is liberal, I read an article about cancer around Chernobyl. It turns out that even there the cancer rate wasn't totally out of bounds: it was higher than elsewhere, but it was not so impressive compared to the natural 1:3 chance of getting cancer that everyone already has. The workers who actually went into the compound are excluded, of course.
it feels like a facile reduction, but i can't help but get the feeling every time that the large majority of anti-nuclear campaigners are acting from ignorance.
i'd really like a few government information campaigns about nuclear, on TV, through people's letterboxes. correcting the stuff that Greenpeace puts out.
if they don't do it, people will gradually think it's true, which has happened in Germany.
why do religious people ignore what atheists say? because their belief system implicitly and explicitly states that atheists do it so that they end up in hell.
the anti-nuclear propaganda already includes the belief that the government profits from it etc, etc, etc.
@RegDwight well i was born 28 years ago, and i don't really remember any in my lifetime. if we've had it, it stopped a long time ago, and ironically there's much more justification for it now than there was then
@Vitaly with religion, you can't disprove the beliefs and so they can kind of get away with the claims. with anti-nuclear, you have real evidence of its safety.
Why would they have cancer from living next to a plant? I'd be happy to live in Sizewell.
if you're going to toss out nuclear, as far as I'm concerned you should toss out wind because it uglifies the landscape, solar for the same reason, hydro because it buggers up rivers, etc.
@RegDwight — Well, to be fair, it's not proven that simply living near a plant significantly raises cancer risk. But if you have a plant failure, a cascade of errors such as occurred at Fukushima, then the story can be much different.
Ehm, I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than where I live now, health-wise. Any big city with cars is very bad. If they tossed all non-electrical cars and fuelled them with a nuclear plant in my back yard, I'd be for it.