I would typically say it like this:
She is the girl with the rubber band in her hair.
We can say “the”, as we are referring to a specific girl, and therefore a specific rubber band.
And I would say “in”, as to me “on” sort of sounds like the band is resting on top of her hair, as opposed to being integrated as part of her hairstyle.
In addition, following ...
It doesn’t sound very idiomatic to me.
It would depend on the exact movement, but when I’m doing this myself, I would usually wring the clothes in the suds rather than rub them together. In rubbing the clothes together I’d perhaps worry about damaging them.
Of course, if you are actually rubbing the clothes together, then “rub” would work.
However, at least ...
I would not use "peel" or "peelings" that way.
You could say. "After you have peeled the potatoes, put the peels in the trash". I have an image of the skin of a fruit or vegetable that have been cut away with knife or special tool.
Although plural, and so "countable" we don't normally put a number on the word "...
Playphrase.me is a website that will play clips of movies based on a specific phrase! I am not associated with it, just seems really cool.
Other than that I might suggest asking american internet-friends to send you audio recordings of them saying 'I guess.' Maybe you can find a facebook group or subreddit that reads requests.
(Ps I have said 'I guess' to ...
There is also an essentially identical remark in some gambling card games, such as various forms of poker where players' cards are not all visible: namely, while there can be bluffing and non-disclosure and so on through the play of a hand, at some point there will be "a reckoning", and people with poor hands will often not even bother to show how ...
For many years now - "many years" = a long time
for some years now - "some years" = a few years
Neither of the following are idiomatic: "for many times now" / "for some times now."
For some time now is idiomatic. "Some time" = an indefinite time. The general meaning of "It has been happening for some ...
“A few weeks later it got better” - there was no change for some time, but a sudden improvement after a few weeks.
“After a few weeks it got better” - it got better slowly all the time; after a few weeks the total improvement was significantly better.
In the second case, you had a little bit of improvement every week, but it was still bad, just not quite as ...
In this context, "I got nothing" means "I don't have anything to say". It could mean that you choose not to add anything to a discussion, but often in this kind of context, it means that you have tried to think of something to add but were unable to.
As you point out, this is his response after he tries to come up with a good answer.
I have not read the entire text of all of the sources listed in the question. But, I do not think its grammatical correctness should be debated here. The style of writing does not seem to try to emphasize grammatical correctness. Quite the contrary. The speaker of the dialogue in each source material seems to be talking in a regional dialect or colloquialism....
Your the is acceptable but redundant. It's only necessary if we don't know it is her school.
When one says, "School starts at 8 a.m.," they actually mean and are saying, "Classes at the school start at 8 a.m." We are not talking about The School. We are talking about The Classes or the Learning. The classes are not called The School. ...
Considering the context of feeding a small child, it would not be inappropriate at all to use a small, simply understood word like bite. If in the context of offering food to an adult you use the term, you can generally assume that a table fork or spoon will only contain enough quantity of a food to be considered a bite. So, in essence, you are not ...
Check out this noun meaning of "bite".
Merriam-Webster "bite" noun 2
noun 2: food: such as
a : the amount of food taken at a bite : morsel couldn't eat another bite
b : a small amount of food : snack have a bite to eat
So, "take/have a bite" can mean to eat a small amount of food.
For soup, "bite" is less likely.
This is a good question. Personally, I think the ambiguity would be resolved by several factors.
Firstly, voice tone; there would likely be a tone of voice that conveys sympathy towards the child.
Secondly, I think context plays a part. If the mother were sad and the child were crying for her, that phrasing would probably only be used in a situation where we ...
"Don't cry for me/us/them/him/etc" is actually a pretty unique sentence in English — we don't use the same sentence structure for other situations, really. Or at least, I can't think of a case where I would. If the child were crying because her mom was hurt, you wouldn't say "The child is crying for Mom," you'd say something like "...
You're sitting sideways in the stroller.
This is fine.
Please turn to face forward*!
Please turn to face straight ahead!
These are fine. However, "turn to" is somewhat redundant. There's nothing wrong with that, but face forward/straight ahead is sufficient:
Please face forward!
Please face straight ahead!
It looks like you want the child to ...
Certainly you can speak of climbing out of a window.
I think it would be more idiomatic to say 'climb' or 'lean in through a window'. We speak of a bird flying into a window when it crashes into the glass because it doesn't understand about windows.
You may say
She cut herself, and her blood was coming out of her thumb.
There is nothing ungrammatical in that. It is, however, redundant: how could someone else's blood come out of her thumb. In fact, however, neither sentence is highly idiomatic; what is far more likely is
She cut herself, and her thumb was bleeding.
Your mosquito example is more ...
English tends to evolve more quickly than some other languages. In particular, there is a tendency for words that were once only used as nouns to become verbs. This will happen particularly often in technical contexts (for example, medicine), where the existing language lacks a detail that is useful, or where creating a new verbs 'saves time' by eliminating ...
Balloons are said to have necks:
Whether or not it has a knot in it.
Neck The neck of a round balloon is the portion which connects its
body to its inflation outlet. It is also the portion of a balloon
which is tied into a knot to keep it inflated.
Anatomy of a balloon
I think either would work, especially if you're trying to add a bit of hyperbole to stop a child accidentally doing something silly.
To an adult, I'd likely use caught because to me that feels more temporary. But you could also consider just being more direct:
You might fall into the box.
Your leg might break the lid.
Or to use a more colloquial phrase:
Saying “in the corner of the wall and the wardrobe” sounds wrong to me; generally speaking I think a corner should be said to belong only to one thing.
While much better, in my opinion, I also think that “in the corner between the wall and the wardrobe” could be confusing, as I might find myself looking for a corner of the room between a wall and a wardrobe. ...
There's nothing wrong with twice more than, but you have to be careful about what you're trying to say.
If the old phone cost $100, then the following would describe the cost of the new phone:
Twice as much: $200. ($100 times two.)
Twice more than: $300. ($100 plus twice that.)This expression is equivalent to twice again as much, which is also used.
Although not incorrect, in this context, 'twice more' would not be recommended. It is generally used when an event is repeated twice after a first occurrence (e.g., 'I knocked his door twice more [after knocking it a first time] in order to be sure he wasn't there').
The best way to say it would be either
Her new mobile phone costs her twice as much as the ...
Since the adverb "partly" is used here, we know that there are other factors affecting the subject. They are implicitly acknowledged but not stated. Hence the phrase "contribute to" would be a better choice than "account for".
Using "account for" that would imply that the listed items fully explain the situation.
From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, both read and write and write and read are grammatical, and essentially equivalent in meaning. There is nothing inherently incorrect in referring to children learning to write and read.
Grammar is far from the only consideration in communication, however. In binomial pairs (i.e. groups of words of the same part of ...
As a native speaker, I just want to confirm you are correct. While in my region of the U.S., I hear "take" much more often -- and I don't even know if other regions are different -- I don't think either is any more correct ... perhaps merely a preference. They are not only grammatically/technically correct, but they are also both in broad common ...
They are essentially interchangeable.
Corpus data from parental spoken language is so rare, it would be difficult to establish which is more frequent or idiomatic.
Based on the discourse function of "that", don't do that! sounds a bit more like a reproach after a child has done something bad ("that" thing), e.g. after the child already ...
First, the transitive use of "sneak" as "give secretly" does not usually convey the idea that the recipient is unaware of the gift.
Second, in my part of the US, "snuck" is more common than "sneaked." (The "sneaked" "snuck" dichotomy is in large part regional, but my impression is that "snuck&...
It's not possible to say which is natural in everyday English as both sentences have different meanings in different contexts.
In case of human hands;
I've seen your hands before means the person has seen her or his hands before. This could mean the person remembers the hands or at least remember to have seen them at least once.
On other hand, I've already ...
A handle is normally a solid and rigid piece of something that is attached to the main body.
A balloon has a knot and usually a string, or sometimes a plastic stick, which are considered separate from the balloon.
So I would not say "handle" nor "itself". I would simply say:
"Hold the string, not the balloon."
Not natural. "Let's introduce ourselves" is okay. "... to each other" is rather redundant, but not really wrong.
But I wouldn't feel the need to say anything at all. It depends a little on the students, and their ages and English abilities and the reason you want them to introduce themselves. But I'd probably just introduce myself, ...
Having said that, X, Saying that, X, That being said, X, There again, X and a number of other similar expressions mean:
Something was previously said that was a good idea, helpful thing, or general rule.
It can be a previous sentence you said or a previous sentence someone else said.
X is an exception to that idea, thing, or rule.
X doesn't make the good ...
You only get 'in' a boat if it is the 'hollowed-out' type like a dingy, rowing boat or the lifeboats from the Titanic. You sit in it and are enclosed by the sides. Boats with decks, like yachts, you would be 'on'
Do we say "we leapt off the large ship" and "we leapt out of the small boat"?...........Yes, if the boat is as have I ...
They can both mean confronting someone you have a problem with, but "have it out with" can suggest an argument or even a fight, whereas "clear the air" is more positive and suggests seeking a resolution.
True, an argument can lead to a resolution, but not always. Stating your intention to "clear the air" certainly sounds like ...
I think thrive in something like in a habitat. E.g. Flamingos thrive in habitats like the lake.
Thrive on, however, is taking advantage of someone’s ability to do something. E.g. Flamingos thrive on interactions with one another.
If you are talking about other words that frequently modify "climate," there are several:
"temperate," "polar," "arctic," "arid," "rainy," and "variable." I am sure I have neglected to list quite a few others.
The expression isn't quite correct in English. It should be
"there would not have been a need"
Note the word order, "would not have", rather than "would have not".
Also, it would be more common to say "it would not have been necessary to...".
…there would have been little need…
Using the determiner "little" seems to make the expression more natural albeit very formal.
By the way, the adverb "not" should follow the modal verb "would", and "any" is normally used in negative sentences.
There would not have been any need
Since this is an exam question with only one correct answer, we have to try out the options and determine which sentence is correct syntactically, grammatically and pragmatically.
Option 1 - As much as he is kept away from me at all times, I am ready to come home again.
There are no grammar errors here, and no syntax errors either. The structure of the ...
According to Google:
insofar as means to the extent that,
and as much as means even though.
Looking at the first option, an extent means "the area covered by something" - it's compatible with the question "how much?"
But--"he is kept away from me at all times" is not something compatible with the question "how much",...
Your definitions are mostly correct but there is more to say.
As you state fall off implies you were on something and then you fell so that you were no longer on it. You fall off a ladder for instance.
Fall out implies being in something and then falling so you were no longer inside. So you might fall out of the door. Note that it also has figurative uses, ...
You can be allowed or permitted to do something, but neither of these logically fits your sentence. If the prize(s) are for a competition that people have to pay to enter, you wouldn't expect someone who hadn't paid to be 'allowed' to win. They are eligible to win because they have bought tickets.