These terms are less using in nowadays.
This is not idiomatic English.
are using is an active form of the verb use, and implies that the subject (terms, in this example) performs the action. What you want is the passive form: BE + past participle.
These terms are less used
nowadays is an adverb, not a noun, so it cannot stand as the object of a ...
To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.
Because this is an uncommon placement, when done properly, it can sound dramatic.
They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.
Never may either precede or follow a tensed auxiliary.
The ordinary position, as you know, is after the auxiliary.
He will never agree.
I have never liked sushi.
She will never be mine.
But in parallel clauses like this, never is usually placed before the auxiliary; this throws the stress onto the auxiliary and thus emphasizes the contrast in tenses.
Both are correct, but they may not mean what you intend to say.
They almost drove six hundred miles.
Means that they intended to get in a car and drive 600 miles, but someone called them and told them it was not necessary. They stayed home instead, but they came close to driving 600 miles (presumably for nothing).
They drove almost 600 miles.
The sentence feels weird to me, I would rather have said, "She ate all of the biscuits greedily."
Other strange-sounding examples would be:
"I climbed rapidly the stairs."
"She slammed loudly the door."
Does it make more sense if we insert that?
to divide something into many small parts especially so that you can use the result for your own purposes
If not, then let us consider one of the definitions of so.
in order that (often followed by that)
So we can reword the original into
to divide something into many small parts ...
The ‘strangeness’ is perhaps not so obvious with a very ‘light’ (brief) adjunct like this; but try it with a heavier phrase:
Andre ate with enormous relish all the biscuits.
Andre ate without stopping to thank his hostess all the biscuits.
The important thing is that the connection between the verb and its direct object should not be obscured. ...
The passive participial construction is formed nowadays with is|are|was|were being plus the past participle
...are being used...
Blood-letting was being used to lower fever as late as the mid-19th century. It was discredited in the late 19th century and is not being used nowadays.
There can be a subtle difference between the two sentences—although they would not normally be distinguished from each other in common use.
In method A, function B only models two variables at a time.
This could be taken to mean that in method A, function B does nothing else aside from modelling two variables at a time.
In method A, function B models ...
[I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]
"Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.
It definitely is ...
None of the above. the correct answer is:
The bill and other documents will be sent only after 100% payment has been completed.
Only after 100% payment has been completed will the bill and other documents be sent.
3 might be correct in a different context - one that requires other documents e.g.:
The receipt will be sent immediately....
I am a native speaker, and the first sentence is not standard. It should be
Not only did he give everyone gifts, but he also invited them to a party.
The second sentence is OK as is with "as well", but requires a comma before "too". It is also acceptable to put a comma before "as well", if you want.
One more thing: if you find it unusual or ...
In this sentence, here is an adverb of place that applies to the verb park.
According to this guide, it is normal to put adverbs of place at the end of a clause. They sometimes go at the start of the clause.
Do not park your motorbike here. Thank you. - this follows the guide
Do not park here your motorbike. Thank you. - this does not
As per the ...
I would interpret these two sentences with slightly different meanings. The context would probably give a much stronger indication of the correct interpretation, though.
You also are allowed to see your son.
Also qualifies you, which means that other people are allowed to see your son, and you are as well.
You are also allowed to see your son.
What you have likely encountered is an exam-maker's intolerance for the split infinitive, i.e. the insertion of any word in a to-infinitive between to and the verb. To quickly clean is a split infinitive; a more famous example is the old Star Trek intonation to boldly go.
The original objection to the split infinitive came from early grammarians who wanted ...
Strictly speaking, they mean something different. One is a statement about future events, and the other is about past events.
I could never learn to swim.
Looking forward, learning to swim is not something I will ever be able to do.
I never could learn to swim.
In the past, learning to swim was not something I was able to accomplish.
It's slang, not 'proper English', but the meaning is very different depending on where you put the hyphen.
Its claws are remarkably sharp
It has claws in its posterior... rather unlikely.
I think that in your particular context, both sentences will be understood correctly. However, I would use the second sentence, because "Function only models two variables at a time" can theoretically be understood as "This function only does that, and nothing more". What if the function can do something esle? In this case, the statement would be misleading. ...
The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.
Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the ...
Let's take a closer look at exactly what we're dealing with. Firstly let's ditch the preposition phrases which tell you when something happens, for example on Tuesdays. These aren't really expressions of frequency. Teach these with other temporal preposition phrases such as on Tuesday or at Christmas. Also notice that only the context will tell you whether ...
You're right, it's the second one
a much too basic question
which you've correctly figured out from the answer you linked because it modifies the adjective 'much'. It's completely normal English, although I agree that aesthetically it's a bit of an awkward construction.
The other option (a too much basic question) reads ungrammatically to me.
used to always say that is the more correct of the two; the other is definitely incorrect. The confusion probably arises because of the "always" splitting the auxiliary verb "used to" from the main verb "say". always used to say that would probably be more correct, and in my opinion at least, more clear.
You can use indeed in a negative sentence. In an isolated sentence like this, "indeed" would more likely be in agreement to another's statement.
He isn't very wise
No, He indeed is not a wise man.
The first one sounds incorrect; the other two are correct, but with slightly different emphases.
He is indeed not a wise man
The emphasis is more on "...
It is not incorrect to put there at the end of that sentence. Without there the listener (reasonably) infers that the horses and donkeys are there. The purpose of there is merely to say that the horses and donkeys were there :)
"I have long been looking for you," is correct.
"I have been looking for you for long," is not correct.
"Long" is used as an adverb in the first example. In the second example, you are attempting to use long as the object of the preposition, and you can't, because it is not a noun.
That said, "I have long been looking for you," sounds a bit flowery and ...
xkcd comic https://xkcd.com/37/
This would be understood to mean "sharp-ass claws" where "sharp-ass" means something like "extremely sharp". Adding "-ass" to an adjective to intensify it is a fairly recent innovation in English. There was discussion on wiktionary if -ass should be analysed as a suffix or not
You ask if something is "allowed". That isn't ...
Your quote is problematic, but not because you use the word that twice.
The problem is that your quote doesn't match your picture. If the person's hand looked like this:
then you might want to draw attention to the one fingernail that is longer than the rest. In that case, you might say:
She really grew that nail THAT long?
However, in your picture, ...
If a man is tasked with hitting on a girl while wearing a skirt and heels, that means the man has to be wearing a skirt and heels at the time he does the hitting-on.
If he has to hit on a girl, wearing a skirt and heels, that means the above. Note comma.
If he has to hit on a girl wearing a skirt and heels, that means that the girl has to be wearing a ...
Today can be placed there because in these sentences it does not attach to the verb but to the subject noun phrase.
[Traffic jams today] are hardcore.
Other expressions of time can do the same thing:
[The meeting last week] was productive.
A noun phrase can be qualified this way whatever its role:
He's going to tell me about [the meeting ...