All of those phrases have roughly the same potential meaning when referring to pancakes. However we really only use two phrases in this context.
flip a pancake
turn a pancake
'Turn the pancake over' is also used, but the word 'over' is redundant and is quite often left out. There is no ambiguity without it so it's not necessary.
With other objects ...
If you want to express such an idea, I'd recommend: "Keep (hold of) this (drinking) straw that it won't sink in the box."
The reason is that the children of the age from 1 year old to 3 years old are more inclined to percept some verbs in comparison to others. These children have not any knowledge about the majority of idioms, proverbs and sayings which ...
It is idomatic to talk about pushing something partly or completely into something else.
Insert a garlic clove into each hole and push completely into the
However, I would note that "do not push the straw completely into the box" is rather adult language to use to a toddler; I would rather say 'don't push it all the way in!". Also those ...
The phrase "to put your feet up" doesn't describe this position but your question has actually been asked and answered in a post on English Language & Use:
Take a look. It answers your question :)
We do not process language by an analysis of grammatical categories.
We interpret the present participle "relaxing" as indicating a progressive sense; a process.
We interpret the perfect participle "relaxed" as indicating completion, an achieved state.
If we choose to interpret participles as adjectives for analytic purposes, they still frequently retain ...
As others have said, the general word for a broken piece of glass is "shard".
You could also say "fragment", "chip", or "broken piece of glass". Those words could apply to almost anything solid. "A fragment of glass", "a fragment of wood", "a fragment of bone", "a fragment of copper", etc. (You wouldn't use these words for liquids.)
Small pieces of wood, ...
First, I'll mention that there's nothing wrong with the adjectives you've started out with: Difficult, unfriendly, argumentative, uncooperative, etc.
One word that comes to mind, though it's a little dated, is:
opposite in nature, direction, or meaning.
perversely inclined to disagree or to do the opposite of what is expected or ...
No, we don't. Pieces of broken glass are often called shards https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/shard
We would only use crumb when speaking of a non-food substance if it was something with a soft texture similar to bread, such as rotten wood. For stone or (hard) wood it would be chips or fragments.
When glass, porcelaine or stone breaks, it usually shatters. What you get are shards (larger pieces) and splinters (small, often longish pieces).
If you talk about crumbles, I imagine very small pieces, typically created not by just dropping the glass, but for example by stepping on the glass or otherwise applying extra force, creating finer particles than ...
The second option is more natural sounding to me (as a native English speaker).
The first sounds curt, and comes across as perhaps a little 'lazy'.
The third sounds stilted - the extra word adds nothing, and makes the sentence slightly harder to enunciate. However, this might be used in a more formal situation.
Hope that helps,
We normally clean windows, clean the car, clean the floor etc. which means freeing from dirt and dust something that is dirty. So, telling a child to clean their pee, which is a grammatical sentence, is literally asking them to wash their pee.
Orbital Aussie's answer is therefore correct but I'd prefer to say “clean up the floor” or “mop that up” (mop up ...
Yes, it is wrong to say just “clean” in that context. To give the additional sense of removal you want, you need to use the phrase verb “clean up”.
Little Oscar pulled handfuls of soil out of the potted plant onto the floor. I used a dustpan and brush to clean up the soil. [I cleaned the floor, but I cleaned up the soil.]
Seems fine to me. I am a bit of confuse because by then is very similar to German bis dann "until then", but actually this makes perfect sense to get in contact approaching the date, before it actually passes.
I can hardly think of a better alternative.
Your definition of rainy means 'a period when there are frequent showers' (a lot doesn't refer to heavy rain). So if rain is falling now we say "It is raining".
There is normally 'some light from the sun' in the daytime. A sunny day is when the sun is strong and there are few clouds in the sky. "It has sunlight" is not idiomatic English.
We can say "The sun ...
The “of” is optional - that is, both sentences are possible grammatically. The version without “of” sounds much better though.
But both sentences are not natural and easy to read. For example, the “online” concept is effectively repeated by using both “website” and “online” (every website is online). You repeat “online” and “food ordering” at the end of ...
"I'm done" in itself is quite an informal expression, so I don't think the real issue here is whether "from my end/side" is formal or informal. There is a difference between formal and professional, and it is the latter that you need to consider with choice of language in work meetings. Many modern workplaces have adopted a casual or informal approach to ...
I think this is partly a theological question rather than purely a language question. I'm going to assume you understand the theology aspect and know what you are trying to express in language.
In English, there is a distinction between "pray for" and "pray to".
Prayers are directed to a god or deity, and what you pray for is the subject matter of your ...
As you found in the dictionary, "shame" is a feeling that a person can have. "Being ashamed" is having that feeling. "Shame on you" is a statement saying that the listener should have that feeling. It's short for "you should be ashamed of yourself" and this is what fits in your scenario.
This isn't related to English, but please ask yourself first if this ...
You would not use the second construction in normal English.
The first sentence needs a definite or indefinite article
With a broken screen. (more common)
With the screen broken. This would read correctly but it would be more natural to say the screen was broken when the computer was delivered.
No, it is not in common use. I simply can’t think of a way to use it and can’t recall hearing it in any context.
It doesn’t work if “take” is being used somewhat figuratively, as it is in these phases:
Take a break
Take a walk
Take a tram
Take a breather
Take a vacation
It is even less likely if used more literally as in:
Take a cookie
Take a ...
Why would anyone say the very wordy:
The rat ran to a position that is below the booth
The rat ran to and then under the ticket booth
when the sentence below does the job perfectly?
The rat ran/was under the booth
The Oxford Learners' Dictionary says "a position that is below something" to define the preposition “under”.
That's not to say ...
The man slipped and fell, landing ultimately on his head.
He slipped and fell, hitting his head [on the floor].
The man hit his head when he fell down.
In the posted picture, he fell and then hit his head.
I have never heard of a person falling on a floor and having their head hit the floor first. The shoulder would hit the ground first and the head ...
"Dive" implies more deliberation than "fall", true, though you may hear "fall" if the dive was made to look like a fall.
In the image, to me this looks very deliberate and seems to be an actual "move", so I think it would actually be just:
She did a headstand.
Following the additional pictures, I would say this as:
She fell and landed on her head.
I Do not agree that the decade ended at 0h00 on 31 December 2019; In my humble opinion, the decade started 1 January 2011 and will continue until 31 December 2020; If we go back to the terms acronyms BC and AC, it implies that the 1st decade started in year 1 until year 10; and the 2nd decade started from year 11 until year 20; Fast forward to the current ...
All three of your sentences are grammatical in English.
But please note, when the subject of the sentence is "you", it has the tone of an accusation: the transmission of the disease was an action done by "you." It would be more neutral to use the passive voice, or to put yourself (I) as the subject of the sentence.
It is also pretty confrontational to use ...
The phrase doesn't mean that the other person isn't nice, it just means they will take advantage of any small mistake or liberty. For example, someone living in a house where the landlord has said "No pets!" They ask the landlord to make an exception because they really want a cat. The landlord agrees, and the next thing the tenant has four cats and two dogs!...
The cliché "if you give an inch they will take a mile" is a warning that someone will take advantage of you. In your context it is warning that you should not be "kind" to your opponent. One can imagine, in a game of chess, a player might make a deliberately poor move, because they think it will open up the game and make it more interesting. But she won't ...
Though both are common, I think may depend on the gender. While shirts are common with men, females may go with top as they have more varieties. Seldom we hear that He was wearing a nice top. More common is He was wearing a nice shirt.
While both expressions are idiomatic, call a taxi is far more common, as illustrated in the Google Books Ngram Viewer below.
The expression call for is generally used in the sense of required. To say that this calls for a taxi means that a taxi will be required - as opposed to a bus or a bicycle for example.
If you needed to make a phone call to get a taxi,...
It is difficult to say anything without having more context. Adding more ambiguity is the use of 'your' and not 'you' (which makes the list personal).
Just like I made your clothes, I made your list may work where it means that you helped someone make his/her list. But as I said, more context will clarify it further. If you get into the list, I'd add a ...
Ignoring other Off Topic "proofreading" aspects of my earlier comment, Yes - the sequence lost time and lost money is perfectly idiomatic (and common, as shown by many written instances in that link).
It's also common (but not required) to "delete" the second (predictably repeated) instance of lost in such constructions, but no article should be present - ...
If you say you will take a rain check on an offer or suggestion, you mean that you do not want to accept it now, but you might accept it at another time.
I was planning to ask you in for a brandy, but if you want to take a rain check, that's fine.
As far as I understand, 'this seat seems fine for me' implies that I can seat (myself) in.
While 'this seat seems fine by me' implies that in my opinion, anyone (else) might seat in it.
Funny, isn't it?
*You'd better have followed his advice?
*You'd better haven't followed his advice?
Neither of these is idiomatic or logical. "You'd better" is a warning, expressed in a hortative mood. You can't warn someone about something that's already happened. You can only warn someone about a future event that may or may not happen.
It would have been better ...
You'd better have/haven't followed his advice
No - those are ungrammatical.
It would have been better if you'd followed his advice
It would have been better if you hadn't followed his advice
Yes - those are both fine.
A slightly old-fashioned, but perhaps more elegant, way to put it would be:
It would have been better had you followed his advice
No, the actual phrase that is commonly used for this exact scenario is "mess around" and not "mess somebody around".
"To mess someone around" is exactly what Michael Harvey said in his answer. From Cambridge, "mess sb about/around" means to treat someone badly. This is somewhat close to "mess somebody/you up" which means to cause someone to suffer emotional ...
To mess someone around is to treat them badly. In your hypothetical situation it is not clear whether the man is deliberately treating the woman badly, as he would be, for example, if he kept an affair going for sex only when he knew that the woman wanted more.
It looks like a euphemistic version of shot to shit. I can't say that it's common, specifically the shit → sunshine part. But in the right context, it should be understandable. This usage of shot, to shit, and shot to shit seem common enough to me. And I would say the UD entry is fairly accurate: when something has worn out, been ruined, gone bad, ...
Often such phrases are merely padding, giving the speaker time to formulate their thoughts, the phrases are not intended to be parsed in detail.
In the same way, "You know what I mean?" is often not really a quwstion
If we do look at the meaning, in both cases the speaker is expressing at least a formal openness to correction. Tone of voice and emphasis ...