B's response is natural sounding. I wouldn't say it's more formal in this context. Adding "certainly" might be a little "sassy" in terms of being "distinctively smart and stylish". It helps convey a certain disbelief and annoyance B has toward A.
I use this joke (and it is meant as a joke, I'm 100% certain) all the time--let me elaborate a bit.
What I am trying to do with the foreign speaker is put them at ease. The meaning is,
You have no need to apologize at all--I know nothing of your
language, and I am impressed by your ability to communicate in my
language. I don't feel like your knowledge is ...
All of these are correct and mean the same thing (one must start lifting weights to become strong):
"...you got to start lifting weights! That's the first step."
"...you got to start lifting weights! That's the first step to it."
"...you got to start lifting weights! That's the first step to your goal."
"...you got to start ...
Here are a couple of relevant definitions...
verb + adverb (ex: throw away)
verb + adverb + preposition (Ex: put up with)
verb + preposition (Ex: look after, look at, wait for, think about, talk about,...)
With a phrasal verb (verb + adverb), the position of the object (a noun) is flexible, i.e. it can sit either between ...
They have very similar meanings, and can largely be used interchangeably.
However, "ready to be shipped" means that the item is still in YOUR warehouse, whereas "ready to be delivered" might be taken to mean that the item is in the hands of the courier, possibly even 'out for delivery'. Depending on locations and delivery methods, that ...
I agree; sounds just a bit odd. Certainly allowable. Maybe pulled open is just a nice, visually descripting sounding thing. Closing a door is a little more restrictive; not a lot of ways to do it; it closes on its own with some hydraulics, or you push on it. It's slower. But if you open the thing, maybe you just turn the knob and open it a tiny hair. ...
The for can be used as a conjunction to mean since or because (in a literary style) and if that was the intention there should be a comma before it.
The results are general enough, for all participants will be able to reason about them.
The sentence could have a different typo error though, and should be
The results are general enough for all participants ...
Your usage is correct and I would leave it unchanged (but without the bold italics, of course). Stylistically it is slightly worse to put in commas, to me. I think after what you have, my next choice would be
Education is of immense value even for labor work, but still some hiring employers value experience over education, simply as a matter of common ...
It is so rare that there no usage.
The judge may want to highlight some entries that did very well, but not quite well enough to win a prize. Everyone else is just not mentioned. I can't think of a situation in which a Judge says "Before I announce the winner let me mention some people who did really badly."
That would be a form of "shaming&...
A variety would be followed by of and a general term for the kind of things being referred to.
I grow a variety of flowers in my garden.
You need variety presumably means something like 'You need new experiences or a change of scenery in your life'.
One meaning of "draft" is to write something for review and criticism before official publication. That is the meaning here: people in the White House are writing documents for Trump to review and approve or disapprove.
"Clearance cancellation" requires knowing something about procedures of the U.S. government. People who are legally ...
Yes, it's a bit of an archaic phrasing, in my opinion still relatively common because of the rhyme "A friend in need is a friend indeed", i.e. "Someone that's a friend to you when you need help is a real friend".
"A friend in need" referring to them as the person in need would be more natural these days, and it still causes ...
The first thing you need to understand is that 'English' is both a nationality and a language. I'm English, because I was born in England. I'm also British, because England is part of Britain. I speak English, so I'm a native British English speaker.
How you use expressions like 'English accent' is all relative. An American might say that I had either an '...
The phrase “you had better X” is often used to state a threat, so I would avoid it. There are some situations where it wouldn’t be perceived that way, but I think it would be difficult to know which context is OK unless you’re very fluent.
An example is,
It’s going to rain cats and dogs tonight according to the weather forecast. You’d better wear a hat!
"So take it" here means "take the focus in this TV presentation; I will be quiet now". There used to be a BBC (British) radio show in the 1950s called "Take It From Here" which consisted of a sequence of comedy sketches. In a radio studio, the actors had headphones and the programme producer might say "Jimmy, take it from ...
The correct way to say it is
I don't cook sushi because i got told off the first time i tried.
"Got" is a common daily-English usage in these cases. It means the same thing as using "was". While fine in daily speech, it would not do in formal writing or a formal presentation.
So you can use 'got' or 'was' it does not really ...
I believe that is not called a eye scratch, because that is something different. In the image it looks like a mole. Moles are found both on the skin as well as in the eye. Medical term is Nevus (plural nevi).
"You have a scratch on the left of your eye" would literally mean you have a scratch to the left of your eye.
If someone wants to describe ...
Not an answer but perhaps another way to say it:
Features A and B improve the performance of this technique.
That puts the features first in the sentence and changes passive to active voice.
(Without more context I can't know whether this accurately conveys how those features impact performance.)
Depending on the speaker, it could mean either. In context, and if a native speaker produced it, it would usually be understood as near the eye, not on the eye, i.e. "on the left of" = "to the left of".
In everyday speech, 'he's got a scratch next to his right eye' would be perfectly sufficient to describe the scratch you have illustrated-...
As others have said, we can and do sometimes use the past tense. However, from childhood, we are used to looking in a picture book and an adult saying, "See the rabbit? What is the little rabbit doing?"
It is easier for children to understand the present tense and to imagine that what they are seeing is happening now.
As adults, it is natural to ...
Example: Can we say: "I read this book millennia ago",
Please, don't offer "more applicable" variants, only say about
To answer the above and only the above:
Yes, it is grammatically perfect to say, "I read this book millennia ago"
It is correct, though the plural "millennia ago" would be a little better. "Years ago", "decades ago", "centuries ago": these are also all possible.
It would be rather unusual. A millennium is a period of 1000 years, so "millennia ago" would seem to reference a time between 2 and 10 thousand years ago, ...
To take your example
There were a lot of (something) millenniums (millennia) ago
We could say
There were a lot of dinosaurs millenniums (millennia) ago
because they roamed the earth many thousands of years ago, in fact many millions. You could use it figuratively or humorously I suppose too
There were a lot of beatniks millenniums (millennia) ago
When something is burned it is often completely destroyed. An exception is when skin or a person is burned, where a mild burn makes the skin red or blister, and so to be burned black would be extreme burning of the skin. "Burn something black" seems to suggest extreme burning, but paradoxically, if a wooden or plastic toy is burned completly it ...
"I laid out your options" means (using the dictionary) explained or made easy to understand. Alternatively you could understand this as meaning "presented".
The metaphor is that there are several option" (imagine the options are written on cards) and the person lays the option-cards out, in front of them, to make the options easy to ...
I would prefer, "Let that be a warning to the rest of you." The use of "reminder" suggests that the boss has done this or something similar before. Of course that is possible: maybe the boss has done this before.
Of course it might be a reminder of something the boss said in the past, e.g. "I will fire slackers".
The expression "sat near the fire for getting warm", is not natural. The expression "sat near the fire to get warm" is the usual expression.
The phrase "to get warm" is a to-infinitival used as an adjunct of purpose. One sits near the fire for the purpose of getting warm.
The phrase "for getting X" can be used in other ...
It is unusual to say that somebody burned something 'to black'. We can say that somebody burnt (British) or burned (US) something black if we mean that they burnt it, or caused it to be burnt, so long that it became black in colour.
Her older sister Miriam, who also has come to Langley Park, can still
vividly describe how the guerrillas seized a bus she was ...
I don't know where it is written that out means far from home somewhere, and outside means near home somewhere. Outside would definitely mean out of something, but that in general could be anywhere.
But yes, looking at the sentences you posed as examples, people are likely to interpret 'out' as somewhere other than home premises, and 'outside' meaning in the ...
Gngram finds that ages ago is much more common than millennia ago.
In the example you gave in your comment to your own question, you give this example:
I read this book millennia ago.
Here ages ago would sound much more natural.
The example in the body of your question might work with either expression depending on what that something is. For example I ...
'To time' as a verb is usually used to suggest measuring a time, not setting one.
You might say:
I'm going to time myself cutting these carrots to see how quickly I can do it!
So, saying 'time the roast' conjures the image of you with a stopwatch waiting to find out how long it takes the roast to finish cooking!
Instead, you would say something similar to ...
The part of your foot that you walk on is the sole.
In everyday speech we probably would say 'Your feet are dirty' without feeling it necessary to specify exactly which part. However, there is a formal word for the upper middle part of the foot - the instep.
In this context I agree with your interpretation.
P.S. Don't forget dictionaries! if you Google "come through" meaning you will get lots of definitions. Come through - DucKDuckGo
Here's a suitable definition:
TRANSITIVE (come through something) to be still alive, working, or
making progress after a difficult or dangerous experience It’s been a
A blot (noun) is a stain of ink (or similar). You would get blots when writing with an old style "dipping" pen, which tends to splash ink on the page.
As a verb "to blot" there are several different meanings
To stain with ink, or to smudge wet ink. (and hence figuratively, to do something badly)
To dry ink using absorbent paper, to ...
If you ask someone "how to feel", you are asking what should you do to be able to feel.
If you ask someone "what to feel", you are asking what should you feel on that situation.
If you are trying to express that you are shocked about something, you can use either "how" or "what", but to use "how" you would ...
In general, "in a place" could be interpreted either way, depending on context. If there is no context referring to a physical place (like your sentence), then I would interpret as referring to one's mental condition. (I think "at a place" would also be an equivalent substitute.)
@Jeff Morrow covered the specifics, but get rid of means to rid yourself of something (not necessarily a physical object). It's something that you own, or something burdening you or influencing your life, so getting rid of it is removing its presence and influence.
Get out of means the person is removing themselves from something - either avoiding a ...
“Get rid of” relates to disposing physical things and does not imply anything inappropriate.
I finally got rid of that broken table and bought a new one.
“Get out of” relates to failure to perform obligations, responsibilities, duties, or that kind of social rather than physical thing.
He got out of doing any of the work by pretending to be sick.
Your two examples of:
are you getting used to your new friends now?
do you know them better now?
Are all proper grammar.
The first sentence uses "getting used to", which means:
If you get used to something or someone, you become familiar with it or get to know them, so that you no longer feel that the thing or person is unusual or ...
You can say "I sit before my desk," but it sounds a bit formal or literary. In order to orient the reader to your position, "I am sitting at my desk" or "I am seated at my desk" both sound more natural to me.
I would say:
A: The smoke detector is on the ceiling (slightly) ahead of/in front of my desk.
B: If the lamp is resting ...
" just how every song by Hillsong is" is not a correct form
This song is completely biblical, just as every song by Hillsong is.
would be the moist usual way to express this. Other possibilities would be:
This song is completely biblical, exactly as every song by Hillsong is.
This song is completely biblical, as every song by Hillsong is.
That is proper grammar.
But you could maybe say "attacking", but then you have to remove the "at":
Ben is held back from attacking the man.
As mentioned in the dictionary, the meaning of "attacking" is:
launching or engaging in a military or violent physical attack.
And for "going at someone" it is:
to attack ...
We sometimes use take off in the sense of leave, without specific reference to the means of transport. I hadn't realised the connection to air travel until you mentioned it---they may be historically related, they may not be.
You could certainly imagine your friends who are about to leave your dinner party and walk home saying:
We're going to take off, I ...
Yes, no difference
Both "The computer went on/off" and "The computer came on/off" are valid and natural nonstarters, and there is no significant difference in meaning. They may be used interchangeably.
The word "for" is used for duration. For instance, "I was in Hong Kong for three months". It's not appropriate for counting the number of instances, rather the duration of instances. "The baseball player has pitched for 42 games in a row" can be seen as grammatically correct if "42 games" is viewed as a length of time, ...
a growing recognition is an idiomatic expression, which means acceptance/agreement/acknowledgment that is growing/increasing/expanding.
Similarly, you can say growing concern/controversy/success/popularity.