As a non-native English speaker, I have a little doubt about using, or not, the auxiliary verb "to do" with the verb "to have". Are there differences in meaning between "I have not" and "I do not have"? Is a British vs. American thing?
If I were to write a book about myself, Me would be a more natural-sounding title than I. Also, we say the us-vs.-them mentality instead of the we-vs.-they mentality.
Okay, the best sources I can find tell me that 1 GB of mobile data costs about $1. And certain Chinese telco guys are coming up with much cheaper ways, going as low as $ 0.25.
Morning!
So that's a profit margin of 90 % on most current mobile data bundles.
So the telco's yammering about how they lose money on mobile bundles is utter nonsense, i.e. they must be adding the lost sales in voice/sms to the costs.
> Daarnaast is China Mobile een van de ontwikkelaars van td-lte. Het voordeel van td-lte is dat het geen gepaard spectrum nodig heeft, waardoor een provider met onverkochte restjes spectrum van andere veilingen makkelijker een netwerk kan opzetten. De kostprijs van 1GB aan data kan daardoor worden teruggebracht van 1 euro naar 25 cent.
Possible Duplicate:
“did shoot” vs “shot”
'Did see' and 'Saw'
“I understand you” vs “I do understand you”
What is the difference in meaning between “I play” and “I do play”?
What is the difference between does have and has? For example, compare she does have...
well, 67062 is asking about "I have no" vs "I don't have", and 64487 is asking about "I have" vs "I do have", the only difference is the negation. Is the negation a significant difference?
In modern English, auxiliary 'do' is used in five cases:
Negative (obligatory for most verbs): "I don't like mushrooms".
Interrogative (obligatory for most verbs): "Do you like mushrooms?"
Emphatic: "Oh, you've done some cauliflower! I do like cauliflower!"
Contrastive (a special case of emphat...
Please tell me, how, exactly, it tackles the issue of choosing between "I have no book" vs. "I don't have a book".
The other answer by Jasper is even less relevant. It is, however, even more relevant to the original question.
@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 OK fair enough, that question is not a duplicate. But this one that has been closed as a duplicate of "did play" does tackle "I have no book" vs "I don't have a book"
I was thinking about these negations. Do these mean the same thing?
There is no point in ...
There is not a point in ...
or:
I have no clue
I do not have any clue
etc.
Well of course they have that in Austria, where eve... ry... bo... dy t... a............... l.................k......s slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
When 1000 minutes voice amounts to a "hello", €7,50 is still quite a rip-off.
What is the difference between "There will be users who doesn't buy something" and "There will be users who don't buy something"? Are they both grammatically correct?
@MattЭллен Do you mean it usually done by single person one the same day, for example, one person usually does the dishes this morning. OR you mean it usually done by same person everyday?
@Anonymous In this case, the exercise appears to be looking for a present simple (do or does). The present simple implies a habit, and the context also implies a habit, not a single event. So it implies that the same person or persons do the dishes every day.
So it could be either do or does, depending on whether the asker expects either one or more people do do the dishes every day. However, who prefers the singular when both are possible, so I'd prefer does — however, I would say do is also correct.
None. It's a quotation from the OED for obumbrative.
I couldn't find the source on the Web.
There's also a later version: “Then Sunne and Moone obscured with anoyance, Yea other Planets with beames obumbratiue, Shall in their kinde shewe dolorus countenance.”
@Anonymous for example - it is illegal in the UK for someone to possess heroin or administer it unless they are a medical professional and that medical professional has a valid medical reason for possessing or administering heroin.
"Then sun and moon obscured with annoyance, yes [even] other planets with overshadowing beams shall after their own fashion present a dolorous [abjectly sad] face."
My best guess at translation into more modern English.
Not sure what the annoyance is there. Without context it's difficult to say.
dolorous probably means "gloomy" more than sad there.
It could be some kind of biblical passage, or other religious reference, contrasting the light of the Christian deity to the heavens as it overshadows the celestial bodies.
@Cerberus No. I'm just used to parsing archaic texts.
Yeah, it's definitely some religious reference (the synnaris in Contempl. Synnaris/A Dial of Daily Contemplation is sinners, unless I am mistaken). I am not sure about that particular interpretation though.
"Obscured with annoyance" could well mean that the light was blocked out, and therefore harmed. Annoyance originally meant something like "harmed" or "attacked" ...
@Vitaly Given that, I'm even more confident that the meaning of the passage is that all the light that human beings see is overshadowed by the divine light.
@Cer Just write the whole passages out, like this: 1. Then Sun and Moon obscured with annoyance shall in their kind show dolorous countenance. And even other Planets shall in their kind show dolorous countenance with beams obumbrative.
The light of the sun and the moon are obscured and harmed [diminished] and even other planets, with beams so bright as to cast them into shadow, will present gloomy [darkened] faces.
A is annoyed with X. B is obscured with Y. Together they shall show a dolorous countenance.
@Robusto Of course.
Well, I mean, that's how I interpreted it, and you with your "by", but I was earlier considering (and rejecting) the possibility that with might instead signify the means by which the sun and the moon and the planets show a dolorous countenance.
And the fact that it is a translation has less to do with it than you might think. Many, if not most, of the translations of the time started with a sense of the original text, but were more about creating a literature that would speak to the audience of the time and make points that were consonant with contemporary mores.
@Cerberus I use it in the sense it is used in rhetoric.
> Rhetoric a complex sentence, esp. one consisting of several clauses, constructed as part of a formal speech or oration.
@Cerberus BTW, as etymology is a historic representation of words, use of the present tense there is kind of misleading. Nothing means anything etymologically. Etymology shows how things came to mean what they do now, even though they may have started somewhere far afield.
I would guess per is from peri which meant the border around something.
@Cerberus Again with the present tense. The best you can say is that etymology presents a history of the meanings of a word. If one of those meanings is obsolete, it is not reflected in any currently viable meanings. It may be of historical value in understanding historical texts, but for those contexts we would use past tense. Got it?