Firstly, it’s “than” not “then”.
Secondly, neither are correct, with the second one being particularly wrong in its placement of “rather”.
The first one at least sort of sounds like it’s trying to say:
Men are rather impressed by beauty.
“Rather” here just means “very”.
I imagine what you are trying to say is:
Men are impressed by beauty rather than (by) ...
The word closed is an adjective, describing the state of your nose after pinching. The structure is called resultative:
"In linguistics, a resultative (abbreviated RES) is a form that expresses that something or someone has undergone a change in state as the result of the completion of an event. Resultatives appear as ...
That's not idiomatic. The main reason is because when you talk about passing something (or its opposite, failing), it's an either-or matter. You either passed the exams or didn't. Using well to describe "how much" you passed the exams doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you really want to talk about "how well" you performed or did your exams, you can say:
The most logical explanation I can manage is that “from” and “before” are both acting as prepositions with implied objects:
I don’t remember him from [the time(s)] before [this time].
I didn’t remember him from [the times(s)] before [that time].
This isn’t something you could do generally because context can rarely supply two implied objects at once.
It's almost a trick question because neither sentence in the question is grammatical.
The verb responding requires modification by adverbs, not adjectives.
The sentence can be simplified like this:
✘ The private sector is responding proactive.
✔ The private sector is responding proactively.
✘ The private sector is responding concurrent.
✔ The ...
It's a sentence adverb:
American Heritage Dictionary "sentence adverb"
"An adverb or adverbial phrase that modifies an entire sentence, especially in establishing the attitude of the speaker or writer, as thankfully in
Thankfully, there was enough for everyone."
These sentences do not mean the same thing to me. There is a different nuance with regards to whether Jim has been in the city for years or whether he has simply been around the city for years. I will comment separately on each sentence.
1. Jim had been in Washington for years, and knew all the right people.
The sentence tells me Jim has lived and worked ...
The quote seems to be in error, until you check a dictionary:
"8. (archaic) Not yet brought forward, produced, or exhibited to view; out of sight; remaining."
"Yet to be revealed", "yet to come", or as you suggested "ahead", would make more sense in modern English.
The word just has a range of meanings - the one applicable to OP's cited context is as per this definition in Merriam-Webster...
by a very small margin : BARELY
Example usage: just too late
Hence just down the road means down the road, but not very far down the road (i.e. - nearby). Note that it's pretty arbitrary whether the place is up, ...
... a no less firmly established boundary, - a boundary which is at least as firmly established. It is similar to the Maths "not less than" which is mathematically the same as "greater than or equal to".
Namely is followed by something more specific or more precise than what came before. Presumably a Siberian husky isn't the only type of wolf-like dog, but even if it were, the species name would still be a more precise way of expressing what you were referring to.
John bought a wolf-like dog, namely a Siberian husky
is correct, but
John bought a ...
"Just south of the North Pole" means very close to it.
"About south of" would mean nearly, but not exactly south of the North Pole.
But everything in the world is exactly "south of the North Pole". There's nothing inexact about it, so that wouldn't say anything about how close they are.
The whole sentence at that link is
The fault had come from the beneath and it was not rectified.
That is not idiomatic to me. "Beneath" is a preposition and not a noun, so it shouldn't have an article like "the".
These two sentences are idiomatic:
The fault had come from the bottom.
The fault had come from beneath.
It may be that ...
Yes, "up" takes on the same meaning as "on". However, this statement is likely made by someone on a lower floor, referring to Tom who is on a higher floor.
For example, if I am on the 3rd floor, it is natural for me to say "Tom is up on the 22nd floor now".
So, it is fine to say "He is down on the 10th floor" if you ...
Folks have pointed out that "much" is close to being a negative polarity item, but I don't think that's quite it.
The truth is that "much" can be used in positive statements too. The thing is that it just is never really used anywhere "bare", without some additional qualifier.
You can, however, use things like "so much", "very much", etc in positive ...
She never is beautiful in the morning.
She even is beautiful in the morning.
She often is beautiful in the morning.
They definitely are suited to one another.
They are definitely suited to one another.
She definitely is beautiful in the afternoon.
It is all about emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the verb be or the adjective?
An adverb can modify a verb, adjective or adverb. Consider placement and what word is being modified. The VERY fat man ran TOO QUICKLY. Obfuscated adjunct means the adverb subtly alters the meaning of the statement. He was TOO smart. This makes a usually positive word appear negative. Honest is a positive trait. BRUTALLY honest modifies the meaning to ...
The present perfect is used when the speaker has in mind or wishes to signal that the finished action or state occurred in some timeframe that has no terminal time boundary in relation to a main time period (now/time of speaking/in this class). The earlier/previous studying occurred in some timeframe (the semester/term of the course) which has not yet ...
There is no significant difference in meaning between the four sentences. Before = on a previous occasion; earlier = at an earlier time (which might be earlier this week, this term or this year!)
The choice of tense (studied or have studied) is not significant in this context either.
Now, the proper sentence is I do not have money. The question is, does
not modify do or have? That is, does not modify auxiliary verb(do) or
main verb(have)? How would you prove that
There are two pieces of evidence:
1. Why would 'do' and 'not' melt together if 'not' had a stronger binding to 'have'? We say: 'I don't ...
It is natural, but not correct in formal writing.
The correct, formal, use is more cheaply.
In the first sentence:
I suppose these 2 sentences are both grammatical and idiomatic.
both refers to the two properties of the sentences, grammatical and idiomatic.
However, in the second sentence:
I suppose both of these 2 sentences are grammatical and idiomatic.
both refers to the two sentences.
Yes, they are correct and meaningful. They all mean the same thing.
Generally, when I hear 'his arm was bruised too', I think that it has been said that something else was bruised. In these cases, nothing but the arm was bruised.
I don't believe "too" is ever quite as restrictive as you interpret.
In your examples, he had an injury (the broken leg) and ...
The parts of speech of "about" can be adverb, when it is used to express the meaning as "approximately" or " a little more or less than a number, amount....etc. Or to represent the number which is not gradable.
about six feet tall
about two months ago
about 4 O' clock ( about conveys here as "at" )
The car was exactly ...
You can definitely use "there" in questions as you've used it here -- "What is there on Broadway?" and "What is on Broadway?" mean the same thing, though the first seems a smidge more natural/idiomatic to me.
That said, if someone asked me "What's on Broadway?", absent some other context, I would interpret the speaker to be asking "What shows are currently ...
The noun pregnancy in phrase A behaves according to [the complete sentence] A, but is (defined as) B (nominalised using the phrasal adjective 'nine-month', not 'nine months').
The logic behind that 'but' is: '(it lasts) nine months' but '(is) nine-month' as a phrasal adjective (singular, with a hyphen) defining a noun. The whole expression suggests to ...
No. "short" and "less" cannot be used in place of each other.
One reason for this is that "less" is a relative term (it's comparing the amount of one thing to something else), while "short" is an absolute term (it says that something is not long (or not long enough), without comparing it to anything else), so they don't really serve the same function in a ...
The tense used is incorrect, it should be
I wished I had handed in the exam [paper] the next day.
But the sentence is ambiguous as to what "the next day" refers. If the regret, I suggest:
The next day, I wished I had handed in the exam paper.
If is the time when you handed in the paper:
I wished I had not handed in the exam paper a day early.
No, the two are not interchangeable, and interestingly, they actually mean nearly opposite things. As was pointed out in a comment, there's actually a very good thread on wordreference.com on this very subject. To summarize the most important points, though:
First, "for long" can only be used in negative statements ("not ... for long"). On the other hand,...