He is saying that you don't owe him thanks, he owes you thanks. He clearly regards you as the sort of student who makes teaching rewarding. He may even imply that he has learned from you, from the sorts of questions you have asked which made him think about things which he took for granted.
If you're describing liquids that are too hot for you, use scalding:
very hot; burning.
e.g. Watch out, the tea is still scaldingly hot!
For food or liquids that are a pleasant temperature, use piping:
(of food or water) very hot.
e.g. "The food's piping hot!"
Since you yourself suggested 'steam hot' - the correct version would be steaming hot, so hot that steam is rising from it:
(as submodifier steaming hot)
Extremely hot: a steaming hot night
He thinks, too, of pumpkin pie and fresh harvested honey and steaming hot cocoa.
according to the OED.
"I just had an ice cold coffee ...
Typical use would be one of the following:
"First of all," for the first point and "Second," for the second point.
"First of all," for the first point and "Secondly," for the second point.
"First," for the first point and "Second," for the second point.
"Firstly," for the first point and "Secondly," for the second point. (Less common.)
So your analysis ...
I'm surprised that no one has suggested boiling hot. Maybe it is a British English idiom:
Be careful with that cup of tea, it's boiling hot... I've only just poured it.
Also, as an example
Can you open the window? It's boiling hot in here!
Can you open the window? I'm boiling hot!
It can also be used for objects that do not actually ...
As far as I know, most typically, this kind of grammar is referred to as the emphatic do. At least, that's the name you see most often used on all those numerous websites dedicated to English language education. However, if you want to refer to a sentence that uses a do or did for emphasis, then I think you'd just simply say a sentence with an emphatic do or ...
I would say that yes, they are acceptable. For example, a kid talking to his mom:
Parent: Did you do your homework?
Child: Yes I did!
Parent: No, I don't believe you.
Child: I did do it!
As Subjunctive mentions in the comments, another option is "I really did it!" Or you could combine the two - "I really did do it!" or "I really do care about ...
The expression thank you very much is used in this context to keep an imaginary discussion short and curt. It's an emphatic yet not-quite-impolite way of expressing the notion of, "I'm a bit bothered by something you just said; let's not go there."
Here are some example uses:
Ted: I think you should go out with Linda again.
Ed: I think I can make up my ...
It can mean a lot of things. Specifically, the 'too' can relate to almost any constituent in the phrase.
I have bought a car this year too. (As well as my friends have.)
I have bought a car this year too. (Next to the car I inherited.)
I have bought a car this year too. (I have bought a lot of things.)
I have bought a car this year too. (I bought another ...
You are correct; Ernie is not asking a question, but making a statement.
As you may know, most declarative sentences in English follow subject-verb-object (SVO) order, but they can be reversed or altered. Inversion can be used for emphasis as well as in questions, conditionals, comparisons, and so on. As a rhetorical device it is known as anastrophe.
The simplest, clearest way is to make the emphasized item the object and then supplement it with the list:
The project will help us to build stronger links to the University of Bonn and possibly other German universities, such as Humboldt State University.
The project will help us to build stronger links to the University of Bonn, as well as to Humboldt ...
To me, this is an odd usage of FF. Typically, "I don't give a flying fuck" is used to signal that one does not care one way or another, and doesn't want to be bothered. One does not "give a damn".
I don't give a flying fuck about some punctuation conventions, though others I consider very important.
Or one can say:
Go take a flying fuck on a rolling ...
It's a trade-off. You can make a longer, less-pithy sentence to get begin/begun to agree with both modal verbs, or you can get a terser, more-pithy sentence if you're willing to live with one violation.
The short version:
Revolutions can, and often have, begun with reading.
puts a lot of stress on the word have. Reading it aloud, the word gets the ...
There's not really any difference in meaning, only in emphasis.
When you add the word single, you are intensifying the emotion with which something is said, whether that be frustration (as in the first example) or elation (as in the latter):
Every time we plan a picnic, it rains.
Every single time we plan a picnic, it rains.
Every time I go on ...
I've always treated "Care to elaborate?" as a neutral statement without any ill will, additional politeness or passive aggressiveness. It's just a shorthand for the more formal sounding alternative you provided:
Would you elaborate?
This doesn't mean that "Care to elaborate?" can't be used passive-aggressively, but that would be down to context, ...
Yes, as written, it is ambiguous. You would apply emphasis when speaking. With no special emphasis, I would assume it means the first thing, "What is your reason for making noise?" But that's because that's a more typical question to ask -- it's not because the wording of this question specifically indicates that meaning.
If you want to indicate the second ...
Fiery hot or flaming hot work. "Flaming hot" best if there's actual fire involved, e.g. "a flaming hot skillet of fajita toppings". While "fiery hot" might describe the extra spicy sauce for said fajitas. Not sure I'd use either of them for a cake though.
I was reading a paragraph in Last Generation magazine. Here it is:
I was attending a closed meeting for recovering drug addicts, but I wasn't a drug addict. I felt the need to lie in order to be there with
a friend who was a drug addict.
As you can see, was was emphasized using italic formatting. What's the best and ...
Revolutions can begin with reading.
Revolutions often have begun with reading.
If you want to merge these two into a single sentence then the two tenses need to be maintained, otherwise it's jarring/confusing, as you have rightly identified.
Revolutions can begin, and often have begun, with reading.
The sentence is ok, but there is a difference between
Environmental issues matter.
Environmental issues do matter.
The first sentence is the more simple way to make the statement, and we would normally choose this way unless we want to make a contrast with something said or implied earlier.
We might choose the second way to give the statement ...
I'd say that it's OK. There's no grammatical rule that says you can't do this. I'm guessing that I've seen it done before - though I'd guess it's done more for comedic effect than in a serious way. I'm also pretty sure that I've seen someone say it in a comedic film, too.
I might make the suggestion to set off the "and only then" with an em dash or commas......
Chew longer before swallowing.
is the correct phrase, but often a child will not know what "longer" may mean, so it might be better to say
Chew your food 25 times before swallowing.
assuming they can count to 25, but it would also be a way for them to learn how to count to 25.
You can fall into a pit, or you can fall down a pit, which roughly mean he entered a pit by falling (what I think you intend). Fall down into also seems possible to me, if you take it to be the phrasal verb fall down with into. This also means he fell and entered a pit. To me, he fell in a pit could mean that; it could also mean he was standing in a pit and ...
I would tend to use your third case when there is a continuing relationship with "her", so the occasions (or possibilities) of treating her in any particular way continue to the present (and beyond).
If the relationship no longer exists, I would be more likely to use the simple past.
But, as usual, the choice of perfect or non-perfect is about how the ...
Note that the italics are used here to indicate verbal stress - you would emphasize these words to clarify your meaning.
MEANING A. At some times of year I play tennis and some other sport, but in the summer I play tennis and not the other sport.
I only play tennis in the summer.
I play tennis only in the summer.
The second could be used in informal ...
"Boy, am I thirsty."
Boy here is a simple exclamation, emphasizing the sentiment that follows. He could have said, "Oh" or "My" or "Gosh" or any number of other mild exclamations in its place.
"Am I thirsty."
This type of phrase is used to assert that one is thirsty. He could have said, "I am thirsty," and it would have meant the exact same thing.
Forgive me for referencing Urban Dictionary, but that's a bit of a yodaism. (NOT a technical term!) Maybe you're aware of this, in which case I'd only suggest adding a comma after "bus" if you have the option. Otherwise, @MaulikV's structure would be preferable generally, but I agree, it's correct essentially.
Redundancy for emphasis
You are correct that adding "on foot" is redundant, since "walk" already implies that. However, saying "walk on foot" is still grammatical. "On foot" functions as an adverb modifying "walk". It's redundant, but it adds emphasis. A person might say "walk on foot" in a situation where they wanted to emphasize the fact that you're not ...