(I thought I had answered this question or one like it, but can't find any trace of it.)
You can use any of those expressions to mean that you have nobody else with you.
Alone can also mean that you are the only person to whom something has happened - "I alone survived the accident."
On my own can also mean that you did something without help - "I found ...
Think about the meaning of "leave". You can leave something in a physical location, or you can leave something alone - as in not touching it, to preserve its condition.
"Leave it where it is" refers to an object's physical location.
"Leave it as it is" refers to an object's condition (which could include its location).
Both of these are idiomatic because ...
It is slang, and informal. There is no particular grammatical reason to leave out the ‘I’, and it is incorrect. The writer of the tweet is probably using #amwriting because it’s a common hashtag, and they want their post to be included in the hashtag’s ‘feed’, so that people browsing #amwriting on twitter can see their post. As to why the hashtag was first ...
You can, but it has slightly different implications.
"Brought in" just means that you took technology which was elsewhere and made it available "here". It might be new technology, or it might be technology people were already aware of, or even used in the past, but just didn't have access to at this point for some reason.
However, "introduced" implies ...
Would you ask you boss to "Please do the needful"? Why not? We see this in the IT world and roll ouu eyes when we see it coming from our IE friends. We don't find it offensive, but see i,t at times, as the requester not actually being knowledgeable of the issue. If you wouldn't use the phrase with you supervisors just don't use it.
Yes, your sentence means what you want it to mean; the complaint is not just pedantic--it is outright mistaken. In my experience with English language conventions, "this" means "the criteria." The sentence further clarifies what that criteria is, i.e. "establishing, delineating, and reviewing..." I will show how this works by parsing the two parts of the ...
I agree with the complainer. You have sort of opened the door to the complaint by separating "stating criteria for" and "establishing..." etc. Maybe you could avoid that separation by saying something like:
The EI act delegates the entire responsibility for [blah blah] to the CEIC and ESDC.
The use of "etc." (and its period) I don't think are really a problem. This is fairly common (and correct usage) and most people will not be confused by the use of a period in an abbreviation in the middle of a sentence.
There are a couple of comments I would make on other aspects, however:
First, you should have a comma before "etc." as it is a separate ...
All elephant's tusks are of ivory, so referring to them, I would just say "elephant tusks".
If a smuggler had a bag of elephant tusks, one could say that he was smuggling ivory.
I wouldn't say "an elephant has two ivories".
I think all elephants have two tusks, unless they have lost one or both, so I wouldn't say "This elephant has two ivory tusks"....
Your second example, "... bit him into his leg" is not idiomatic.
For the other two choices...
Note the example in your definition, "bit into a juicy pear"; the connotation of "bit into" is that the biting is just starting.
The last example is the most idiomatic.
The answer here is shown by the verb tenses you're using for the rest of the sentence. (and you did get the verb tenses correct, BTW, which many people don't, so good job on that!)
Before I know it, I will become his slave.
This is perfectly correct, but it is a future tense sentence. It says that you will become his slave in the future, and that when ...
For "take (something) apart", people almost always talk about the complete object, because that is the current or starting condition, and it's also just easier to say (usually fewer words, etc).
But "put (something) together" is a little different. In this case, you actually can talk about either the completed object or its parts, but the two do not mean ...
Your first example is pretty reasonable, certainly understandable, though I would have written it as ... decided to put _on_ extra buses...
Your second example is also understandable, but not entirely natural to me - it would make sense in some cases, if we were talking about a shop taking stock from their back room and putting it out on the shelves but ...
"Fraud oneself to the office" is neither grammatically correct nor idiomatic.
First, "fraud" is a noun, not a verb.
Second, "to the office" sounds like you are going to work. "Into office" is used when referring to obtaining a government position.
An idiomatic way to say this would be "get into office by fraud"
"... on that one though..." means "... about that subject, though ...", or "... as to that matter ...".
It is referring to "... second one...", that is, the second subject, the partnerships with KBOR, that has been brought up by Speaker 2.
This material may remain difficult to understand because it is a transcription of speech between speakers who know ...
It doesn't sound ambiguous to me, maybe just a little informal, and in a conversation, any doubts can be settled easily. More formally, you could say "the price will total $20 per infographic."
Actually, I'm editing my answer to say that it is very ambiguous. I didn't see the other possible interpretation until a moment ago. You may be saying that you ...
From Wiktionary irregardless:
irregardless (not comparable)
(nonstandard, proscribed, sometimes humorous) Irrespective, regardless. [from mid 19th c.]
Although well attested, this word is widely regarded as nonstandard and incorrect. Its use is discouraged by many speakers, who consider it inappropriate in ...
It is unfortunate that popular use of an incorrect word will eventually cause it to be added to the lexicon. "Irregardless" is one of those words. Those who believe it means the same thing as "regardless" do not understand the addition of the prefix "ir" as a negation (e.g., irreverent, irresponsible, irregular, etc.). Therefore, irregardless means not ...
Yes, it is valid and natural. It is equivalent to "Why do you think so?", which is a bit terse. You also might say just "Why?", which would be rather brusque.
When you ask why someone thinks something, you are challenging them. You may be able to do that more gently by using more words to ask the question.
There appears to be no clear preference recognised by English speakers. I guess there are some technical nuances about using "I" as a subject versus "My Work", but for all practical purposes, the two sentences have the same meaning and are completely interchangeable.
And those two are not the only options, either: commonly heard around the office is
Your first example is not correct.
I hope that you read books as many as I do.
Structured like this it doesn't make any sense, bceause "as many" appears to be operating on the verb "to read" when actually it refers to the number of books. You could say "I hope you read books as often as I do", because "as often" is the frequency with which you read.
Sure, but a subject must have been established or it won't have any meaning.
"Are you sure there aren't any UFOs?"
"I'm as certain as can be."
"Is he sure the stock market will fall?"
"He's as certain as can be."
No. The correct expression would delete the "what":
"Jack does to Fanny exactly the same as Fanny has done to him."
To keep that "what", you would need put another at the start of the sentence:
"What Jack does to Fanny is exactly the same as what Fanny has done to him."
It seems that "off" vs "off of" is largely a matter of preference and there is some debate about it. For example:
It seems that "off of" is often considered either redundant or incorrect depending on who you ask. It also appears to be more common in ...
The specific expression "go over big for" is not that uncommon, but also, I think, a bit of a special case. It is, in my opinion, sort of a cross between "to
go for" (to be interested in) and "to go over big" (to be enthusiastically received), so it essentially means "to become enthusiastically interested in (something) when it is presented to (some group ...
The child climbed up the chair.
This means that the child was in the process of climbing up the chair.
The child climbed up onto the chair.
This means that the child has reached the top of the chair (action completed).
No. "Drying up" is idiomatically limited to kitchen things. The dictionary intends a limited meaning when it says "plates, dishes etc" - you should treat that "etc" as referring to crockery, cutlery, glasses, mugs, pans, etc; not hair, car, etc. Drying up is the counterpart of washing up, which we also only use for plates, dishes etc. We say "She's ...
You're right, the phrase the fear of spiders of my wife is ambiguous. It might refer to your wife's fear, or someone else's fear of your wife's spiders.
Realistically, this phrase would be rarely or never used. If we wanted to communicate the first message, we'd most likely say, my wife's fear of spiders. For the second meaning, we might say, the fear of ...