Both of these expressions convey the same meaning. Nevertheless, as stated in the comment here under the answer, this phrase is a way weaker than saying I love you.
So, to answer, you can use either of them in the context of showing interest in some person as you like her.
But beware of using this phrase. You add a little 'for,' and the meaning changes!
The so-called best single adjective you could use for this is equidistant:
1 : equally distant
// a location equidistant from two major cities
In the example sentence, that would be:
The two equidistant cities are included in our comparison.
However, I said "so-called" because there are two problems with equidistant:
Normally, two or more things ...
This is a pretty common idiom, yes, but it's actually not too ungrammatical either. The grammatically correct way to say it really just needs one more word:
I'll make you sorry that you did this
Your alternate form, "I'll make you sorry for what you did" is also fine. The two mean pretty much the same thing, but technically "sorry that some thing ...
When you have a question about whether to use the definite or indefinite article, here are a couple of general guidelines about the difference:
Using "a"/"an" means basically "there may be more than one, and if there is, it doesn't matter which one you choose"
Using "the" means "there is a specific one that's important here, and other ones may not be the ...
Is the study ongoing, or have you finished it? If the study is ongoing, then you should use present tense. If the study is over, you may use past or present tense-- your choice. This is because the study still exists, and it is still about the same material. You have also already finished with the study, so it can be referred to in the past tense if you ...
In the cited usage, the window is just an idiomatic "flourish" - it could just as well have stopped at tree decorating rules are out, where out is effectively no longer relevant, dismissed from consideration.
In the exact context, we can probably assume that "no longer relevant" sense more precisely implies We no longer have to concern ourselves with ...
"Out of the window" is an idiomatic expression that means something is no longer possible, or no longer an option.
In your example - which I recognise is from The Big Bang Theory, it means that as Sheldon is not with them to enforce his arbitrary rules, they do not need to follow any rules.
A similar idiomatic expression is "off the table".
They went up the path to the house, Meg reluctant, eager to get on into the town.
They are going up the path to a house.
Meg is eager to go into the town.
So she's reluctant to go to the house because she's eager to go somewhere else.
You seem to understand that both adjectives apply to the same subject (Meg), hence the confusion, so once you understand ...
The archaic bit is the use of but.
I believe the passage means "not so soundly that he wasn't prepared to accept...".
In other words, if he had beaten them even more soundly, he wouldn't have gone away, but would have stayed to rule; but they put up quite a fight (so he couldn't beat them as soundly as he might have wished), so he accepted their ...
Sorry but this must be an error - "distanted" is not a word.
In its place you could use either:
Distant - but this is relative - saying both cities are distant would mean they are far away from you, not necessarily from each other.
Remote - this would mean the two cities are isolated, away from anything else, which would include everything, not just the ...
Get, which can mean become, among many other things, is often used with verbs that describe how a person feels or the state that person is in. Get has many uses in English and it is very useful to learn the one where it is paired with an adjective describing the state is person is in. I have only given examples below with adjectives.
- get ...
When talking about a fully specified group of people or things we can use "the" to mean that fully specified group.
The lions come down to the waterhole at night
The English enjoy tea
The punks would wear ripped t-shirts.
The Bolshovicks were a political party that gain control of Russia following the October revolution.
And so on.
You can't use the emphatic do in the present perfect because it is the auxiliary verb which is used for the Present Simple tense.
In the sentences "He does have a car" and "She does have a cat," have is the main verb, while do is auxiliary used in the affirmative sentences for emphasis.
Have can function as a main verb or as an auxiliary verb too. In ...
Thanks for your comments. I have just found out the answer to this problem from an English test paper with keys. The rewritten sentence is " What the policeman was saying fell on deaf ears last night". But there are 8 words in total.
Perhaps the most natural question would be "Was it you [who farted]?". It would not be strange to ask "Did you [fart]?" Since there has been no mention of "hiding" previously it would be hard to understand "Are you" as meaning "are you hiding it?"
Correctness in this kind of context isn't very important. Children will pick up correct English at a young age, ...
"Did you?" is correct. It's just short for "Did you fart?"
The best way to check is just to imagine it as a full sentence, which you've seem to have already done. You can then easily see that "Are you fart?" is clearly wrong.
Data demand is unknown. vs The data demand is unknown.
You can use either, 'The' can be omitted as demand is uncountable. However, the second has more stress on the specific 'data demand', especially if you have mentioned the demand in your previous content.
Data generated by existing methods is ... vs The data generated by the existing methods is ...
The two questions can't be shortened without significantly changing the meaning.
I would not understand what you were asking in the shortened question.
The two questions are quite different. I can see no simple way of combining the questions except with "and"
Can I confirm that we can contact you on this number and that we can deliver to the address ...
The basic grammar for an exclamation of praise is
[person] is good at [activity noun / gerund form of verb]
When praising a person in this way, you must describe the activity as a noun rather than a verb, but you can turn verbs into simple nouns by using gerunds. Alternatively you can use a regular noun activity instead.
An example for a sport as a ...
I would amend the first sentence to:
My best friend committed suicide because he was being bullied at his high school for being "blind" shortly after this song was released.
This makes it clear that he was being bullied for being "blind" in general, which I'm sure is the case, rather than being bullied for being "blind" only at his high school.
The last ...
Difficult to say for certain without context - but I think you should use neither.
Incoming flow's management would be the management belonging to Incoming Flow. That doesn't make much sense.
Incoming flows management would be the management of multiple flows - how many flows do you have?
If you are talking about the flow of income (eg money received by a ...
Because the movie is wrong; you are correct: "Lie still."
This article from Merriam-Webster supports your correct understanding: (bold emphasis added)
Lay means "to place something down flat," while lie means "to be in a flat position on a surface."
Most native speakers of any language have their common, vernacular errors. Native speakers often get this ...
When you're hit over the head, the instrument could be a “lead” (Plumbum) pipe.
But when it's a verb, “lead” is the present and “led” is the past tense.
The problem is that the past tense is pronounced in exactly the same way as the above-mentioned metal, so people confuse the two. I think this is a typographic error and someone not checking.
"To" is a preposition that can be used to say many things. You can use it to indicate:
A goal [As in your question]
A direction of movement
A place of arrival.
So, your question:
"Can someone help me [with this thing, now]?"
Yes they can...
"Can I get someone to help me [tomorrow]?"
Yes you can... TO is indicating a goal you wish to achieve - ...
I think you have two non-dependent issues, which is where the confusion may come from:
Is there only one generic function or are there more than one possible functions from which to choose? If there is only one, use the definite article - "the generic function". If there are a few to choose from, use "a generic function." or "the most appropriate generic ...
English doesn't really have a Future Tense anyway, but I would say that in I can go tomorrow, can is effectively Present Tense. You can see this at the syntactic level by noting that the "future" version of I can go is I will be able to go.
But it's also true at the semantic level, in that I can go tomorrow effectively means My current status is that I will ...
'Can' is perfectly fine in this context, though it is often used in a 'reserved' manner, by which I mean that someone might well say "I can travel to London tomorrow, (but really don't want to.)"
'Can' is not a direct replacement for 'Able to' in all circumstances - it works fine in your example, but to borrow Michael H's example, "You can drive my car" ...
I think this is perfectly acceptable. It would be much less confusing when spoken, as you would naturally emphasise the second "had" (and maybe even shorten the "he had" to just "he'd"):
John talked about a spare key that he'd had made...
In this case, the fact that you're using "there is/are" doesn't really determine whether or not you can omit "in the office". You certainly can but that's mainly because "in the office" is already mentioned in the question. If the sentence isn't following a question, omitting "in the office" may cause a lack of information.
Bonus: Since "people" (the unit) ...
Both are grammatically correct. However, neither of those would ever be used by a native speaker.
If someone is hiding, and you want them to come out where you can see them (like the police looking for someone), you might say just "show yourself". But you could also say "come out where I can see you". Both are just as common.
If you want a person to show ...
Your answer, "The car was far, but it wasn't too far for me to see," is correct. The alternative, "The car was far, but it wasn't far enough for me to see," makes no sense: even if one were very far-sighted, saying the car is far , but it isn't far enough to see implies that person could only see things at a very great distance.
"a X and Y" implies that "X and Y" is a recognized unit - i.e. that the two belong together and can in some way be considered a single entity.
To give some alternatives:
I am moving in with a husband and wife.
would be fine. A husband and a wife form a recognized pair.
Most people would would not consider "dog and cat" to be a recognized pair. They don'...
with a dog and a cat is far more usual.
There's nothing wrong grammatically with with a dog and cat; but it is formally ambiguous as to whether it is talking about two animals or one.
Of course in this case, there is no sensible meaning that would take it as one. But consider with a teacher and counsellor: that will probably be taken to refer to one ...
Here, we have to work mainly on two clauses:
Dependent clause - Supposing they would have got married (It is dependent, because it cannot stand as it is, alone)
Independent clause - Wouldn't the day have come... ? (This can stand alone; hence independent). Now, see the following examples.
Some more examples:
If they get married, the day will have come.......
There is nothing wrong with using the passive voice in a subordinate clause of a sentence where the maun clause uses the active voice or vice versa
She grabbed the man who was being chased by the police.
With that said, you are correct to feel that your suggested sentence sounds odd. It is awkward, verbose, and stilted.
"I have got a woman at home." or "I've got a woman at home." are both correct grammatically.
"I have a woman at home." is also correct.
The grammar of "I got a woman at home." is not really correct by the standards of English teachers and/or grammar books. However everybody understands it, and it's very common to hear people say it that way casually in ...
I've never heard your rule, and I don't think it's very helpful as it stands.
One use of could is to make polite requests, eg
Could you bring my bag up for me?
The answer is most often not can or could but will:
Yes, I will!.
No, I won't, because I'm not going that way.
Sometimes the answer is can, usually meaning that the person is ...
Looking around the net, there's some indication that this may be something that is different for British vs. American English, but I will speak from the perspective of American English:
Both "nighttime" and "night-time" are grammatically correct in U.S. English, and you can use either one in place of the other. "Nighttime" without a hyphen is generally ...
Kentaro Tomono's answer is partially correct. In this case, "everything (they've got)" is the direct object, and "it" is an indirect object. The sentence:
They gave it everything they've got.
could be reworded as:
They gave everything they've got to it.
(although most people wouldn't actually say it that way)
In this case, the implied "it" is ...
I would like to answer even though I am not a native speaker!. So please ignore or downvote mine if you would like to.
Your question is very confusing since the contents of the title and the contents of the question you are asking is different.
If that IT is an indirect object, then it is OK, except that the following phrase after the "everything", which ...
What the answer is drawing on is possibly the notion of ordered conditionals 1, 2. The two of them never got married. The notion of their marriage is a hypothetical. This leads you to a so-called type 3 conditional and to the past perfect in the first part of the sentence (the conditional clause).
Had they got/gotten married ...
If they had got/...
The 'myself' can serve a few purposes here.
As per the other answers, it emphasises the 'I',
As per the other answers, 'I will do it myself' i.e. I don't need your help.
It also serves to contrast that 'I' will be doing something that you/others may or may not be doing. For example
I myself will eat, while you continue to play video games and let your food ...
There is a difference.
This is a demonstrative pronoun. So, using it you, you specify which cat is yours. For example:
-There are many cats in this room. Which one is yours?
-Oh, this is my cat. (pointing at the cat)
But if you enter a room holding your cat, you might say to your guest, "Here is my cat." It sounds like you are introducing it to ...
"She has been a vegetarian" means that she was and continues to be a vegetarian. "For ten years now" means that, counting from today, she started being a vegetarian ten years ago.
To indicate that she was a vegetarian for ten years but is not anymore, you would say, "She had been a vegetarian for ten years but then quit" or even just "she was a vegetarian ...
I think you are reading this correctly, but I'm not totally sure. "Until, that is, the wood rots" should be read as belonging to the previous sentence, describing how the oxygen/carbon dioxide levels would remain the same until the wood rots, within the imaginary scenario of the Amazon disappearing instantly. It is actually not a complete sentence... it is a ...
It is not a mistake to say "a subscription" but it is not normally what you mean.
The first example looks wrong to me. The word "subscription" should be used a countable noun, and so you need some article or determiner.
The second is correct. If a person had multiple subscriptions and the meaning was "you can cancel one of them". However this is ...
I would say
I have been watching football since the 2010 World Cup and I like players like Drogba and Lampard. After World Cup I started to watch Premier League.
Saying have started doesn't seem right in this situation because of the After World Cup it is fine to say I have started to watch... or I have started watching on their own.