The first one is a play on the phrase 'I'm going bananas' to mean going a bit crazy. (Sounds a bit like a Tim Vine one-liner this). It is meant to make you think they are going crazy when you read the first three words, but then when you read the rest, you realise you misunderstood (due to the lack of punctuation) and that the person is actually saying to ...
"I'm going bananas" is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house.
is a "garden-path sentence" . The Wikipedia article defines this as:
a grammatically correct sentence that starts in such a way that a reader's most likely interpretation will be incorrect; the reader is lured into a parse that turns out to be a dead end or yields a clearly ...
It's used both ways – it can indeed be an expression of confidence, but it can also be a genuine request for clarification. And even in the former case, you can usually assume that the speaker is in fact reasonably open to being corrected. (Though maybe not in a "heated debate"!")
(By the way, it's "underlying meaning," not "underline.")
"I'm going (= becoming) bananas!" (= crazy).
"I'm going (= go out somewhere), bananas" (the fruit) is what I tell my bananas (the fruit) before I leave the house
I am speaking to the fruit as if they were sentient and could understand me, which in turn makes me look and sound quite bananas (crazy, loony etc.).
to go bananas (slang)
1. To become ...
I hear "correct me if I'm wrong, [name]" quite often in my office environment. It is used when someone is answering the question that they were asked while at the same time acknowledging that someone else in the conversation may have better knowledge to offer.
They are both grammatical but show up in slightly different usages:
"Let go of someone" implies that someone is being physically held, as in directly restrained by hand.
"Let someone go" could include a physical restraint, but could also refer to a any other sense of captivity or preventing from departure. It can also be metaphorical, suggesting that one be ...
Very often in English, prepositions attached to verbs alter the meaning. Looking is one such verb.
I am looking — this has a number of meanings, from searching ("looking for it") to appearing ("looking thoughtful"). The "appearing" meaning requires an object; the "searching" meaning requires an object after for. The phrase "I am looking" can omit "for it" ...
"Are you" is the present tense, while "will you be" is future continuous tense.
Technically speaking then, the difference is that "are you free on Sunday" is asking somebody for their present plans or the current state of their diary for Sunday. Either they are currently free, or they are not. "Will you be free on Sunday" is asking if they anticipate being ...
The second sentence is the correct one.
"In" can be used to describe a belief, opinion, or object of interest.
I'm interested in you.
I believe in god.
"On" has its own use cases.
For denoting position:
I set a pencil on my desk.
For referring to device:
He is on the phone.
Or for talking about the state of something:
The greater buckets are allocated:
As a sentence it's almost valid, "The greater the buckets allocated" would work, however the meaning is different. It would mean you're using bigger buckets not more buckets. Objects of variable size can be greater and lesser, to mean bigger and smaller, but you'll rarely hear it outside specific circumstances such as "...
Neither is grammatical in standard English, because since cannot be followed by a present progressive.
Since normally has to be followed by an expression which disgnates a point in time, not a period, such as "since last Wednesday", or "since I started driving". But (for reasons which are not clear to me) it can be followed by a perfect, eg "since I have ...
Without more context, and with a general understanding of how video games are set up here is my understanding:
Get is being used here to mean achieve or accomplish.
with your player would refer to the fact that "You" are in fact not actually participating in the football game, but rather "You" are controlling a "Player." Therefore "Player" is sort of a ...
This is one of those situations where English doesn't necessarily make sense.
This sentence is perfectly normal:
✔ He walked with a limp.
This would imply that limp is countable. But, syntactically speaking, the word itself isn't. (We simply never pluralize the noun directly.)
So, we would never say the following:
✘ He walked with two limps.
It sounds correct to me. The only shortcoming is that the word "others" refers to two different groups of people in close succession. If this is an important phrase, rewriting it more clearly is not a bad idea.
Maybe something like
Some were made to cry, others to cause crying.
or, since this sounds a little formal,
Some were made to shed tears, ...
Both statements can be interpreted to mean the same thing, but the second is likely to cause confusion. I would use the first sentence, to make it clear that "about the problem" is a separate prepositional phrase that is modifying the noun phrase "a lot" (which is the object of the verb "hearing").
The phrase "a lot of" is used as a quantifier, and paired ...
Yes in this context that means "week after week, month after month, year after year". I might have written "week by week ..." with the same meaning.
It is worth noting that this is a translation, the judge apparently spoke in German. The use of "for" may echo a usage that is normal or idiomatic in German, but unusual if translated literally into English.
It seems fine to me (native British English speaker).
I believe that "quite" meaning "somewhat" (which I think is the only reasonable reading of this) is mostly a British usage: American English prefers "quite" only in the sense of "very, completely".
In possible support of this, searching the GloWbE corpus for "quite a [adjective]" gives 4501 hits for ...
"He's quite a vulnerable boy" is perfectly fine, though it may strike some as a bit stilted. "He's a very vulnerable boy" means the same thing and will sound more natural to many native speakers.
Edit: Well, now that I've read Colin Fine's answer, I guess I should say "he's a very vulnerable boy" means the same thing as "he's quite a vulnerable boy" in ...
Leaving aside the possibility that what she said was "I would have finished my work by the evening", mentioned by Christian (which didn't even occur to me as a possibility, but I concede it is a possible interpretation), the difference is the same as:
I will finish my work by this evening
I will have finished my work by this evening.
As is often ...
Both are grammatically correct with different meanings.
She said she would finish her work by the evening.
In this context, what she literally said was something like "I'll finish my work by the evening". She made a statement about her intentions to finish her work, and the speaker is relaying that to someone else in the future.
She said she would ...
In the given sentence:
The priest class took upon itself the monopoly of scriptural knowledge and interpretation of the same to its own advantage.
I do not see a grammatical error. As a matter od style I might have written "claimed" or "held" rather than "took upon itself". I might have written "scriptural knowledge and interpretation" or "scriptural ...
What you were doing can be described in several ways:
Implementing suggested changes from the code review
Improving the code based on comments from the code review
Applying corrections/improvements/fixes suggested in the code review
Note that reviews typically generate comments (or requests for changes, in more official cases). A remark is a statement that ...
It is correct but not required.
We walk for ten miles
We walk ten miles
have nearly the same meaning. Slight difference in nuance, "walk for 10 miles" is more common when the distance is the purpose of the walk
Walk for 10 miles to raise money for cancer research.
But "walk 10 miles" when you are describing a walk for some other purpose
In general the metaphors they use are not extremely well thought out, so it is pretty hard to decipher an exact meaning from them. That is mostly due to their conversation being live and unscripted but... As a native speaker, here is my interpretation:
For more context, the section of the video the speakers are discussing how they think so much of a ...
Saying "toggle on" is okay, if you are using a toggle switch, or a toggle form control on a web page.
If you are talking about "activating something" then "turn on" is more common. "Toggle the switch to the 'on' position" is longer but explicit.
Both of them mean the same thing, which is to express the speaker's opinion about something. The difference is that one is less committal than the other.
Sometimes people don't want to be direct when expressing an opinion. They might not be completely sure that they're right, or they might not want to set themselves up for a confrontation, or they might ...
I may not be surely correct but I will use these three words here differently which I hope will clear the concept.
I want to buy this later.
I don't want to buy this until later.
I want to buy this but not until later.
To me this is it. But anyone who wants to change this?