"You are your own biggest fan."
This would be an informal way of saying the same thing. It could be used positively or negatively. If used in a negative sense, it is stating sarcastically that the person thinks too much of himself.
Here's a link to an Internet search showing how similar sayings are used in a self-affirming sense: Link to search results
To be pedantic means to be excessively concerned with minor details.
"Splitting hairs" is a kind of pedantry, but more specific. It is used when someone focuses on a minute difference between two things.
Example of pedantic:
Person 1: This record is from the 1980s.
Person 2: Actually it was originally released in 1979 and then re-released in 1981 so ...
Statements like this typically use your own X:
You are your own first supporter.
You are your self first supporter
sounds awkward. Self is not used as a modifier very often except as part of fixed phrases like self service.
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
Your first sentence is not grammatical English, so it will not sound natural to any native speaker. The reason is that 'self' is the indirect object of first supporter, but your sentence doesn't indicate the relationship. You would have to say
You are your own first supporter
Your second sentence fixes this problem by explaining that you are the first ...
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences ...
I would consider "consider me in", and "consider me out", idiomatic. They're just not as usual in written material as the more common "I'm in" and "I'm out", or indeed "count me in" or "count me out". They are, however, an idiomatic variation of the same thing.
Literally, consider me X doesn't mean I am X, it means that the person you are saying it to ...
Walton built the crop of draft picks who followed into a team attractive enough to lure LeBron to Los Angeles
Walton built the picks, who came later, into a good team.
“Who Followed” is one idea, and “into a team” is a different idea.
“Into” is being used to say “he turned ingredients into a result.”
"it's so lovely a day"?
I am going to 100% disagree with Bella swan, and say it is perfectly lovely, it is a bit quaint I wouldn't use it everyday but I can quite imagine myself saying
it's so lovely a day, lets go for a picnic
I would be being intentionally twee, I would be imagining wicker picnic baskets, boys playing cricket, bees buzzing and a ...
The boy guides the boat towards the shore.
In this sentence, "towards the shore" modifies "guides"
The philosophy guides the policy towards employees.
In this sentence, "towards employees" modifies "policy", because you cannot move a policy physically closer to employees - the word "guides" just has two different senses in sentence 1 and sentence 2.
The philosophy guiding [the organization's policies towards its
employees] is not bad.
I think the more salient interpretation is that it's "the organization's policies towards its employees" that are being guided by a philosophy that is not too bad.
Which means that the PP "towards its employees" modifies "policies", and thus the whole bracketed element ...
In these sentences, the word "toward" doesn't refer to a direction. It's a synonym for "regarding", and is used to modify "policies". So "policies toward its employees" refers to the policies the company makes regarding their employees, and "towards its employees" is being used as an adjectival prepositional phrase.
Most online dictionaries don't mention ...
You have to consider the whole phrase: a tomato/tomahto word. In the USA, some people pronounce the word 'tomato' so that the 'a' vowel is said like the 'a' in plate, date, late, etc, and others pronounce it like the 'a' in the southern British pronunciation of father, past, last, etc, which is often represented in American writing as 'ah'. A tomayto/...
Maybe something as simple as (this is very common)
Believe in yourself.
A popular proverb is
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
It is sometimes said that
You can't find love until you love yourself.
Or if you want something a bit more pessimistic:
The only person you can rely on is you/yourself.
Both "son" and "father" convey two pieces of information:
The family relationship between two individuals.
The gender of one individual (the subject of the sentence).
So your first sentence
Alex is a son of Smith.
has these implications:
Smith is Alex's parent.
Alex is male.
Smith could be male or female.
Your second sentence:
Smith is the ...
They have the same meaning, and are interchangeable in your example.
"Come to think of it" is slightly less formal English, but in speaking, this is no problem.
They would not be interchangeable if you were the narrator in a story talking about other people, or about general facts.
The war was lengthy. In hindsight, it became clear that those who ...
is its own is not a phrase.
its own clearly definable concept is a noun phrase, the complement of is.
Its own here means "standing on its own, not requiring reference to something else" rather than "belonging to itself".
In theory, yes, the second sentence is syntactically ambiguous and could be viewed either way. However, as a native speaker just reading the sentence, my interpretation agrees with that of CowperKettle--namely, I interpret towards its employees as a modifier of policies in all three sentences.
While both are correct (-ish), your first option is unclear and may often be misinterpreted.
You are using Merriam-Webster's first definition:
1: in proximity to : near
However, definition 3b can also be used in a valid interpretation of the sentence:
3b: not later than
// be there by 2 p.m.
Using this definition, the sentence would mean that ...
Consider the key section of the sentence:
...Walton built the crop of draft picks who followed into a team attractive enough ..
Here "the crop of draft picks who followed" is the group of people who were picked by the team after the drafts of Luol Deng and Timofey Mozgov. Call this geoup of players "the guys" and we have
Walton built the guys into a ...
[Most politicians downplaying the dire economic situations the people
are facing], this candidate stresses that improving the lives of the
citizens is a matter of import.
Yes, the bracketed expression is an absolute clause.
It qualifies as an absolute because it contains a subject and is subordinate in form, but has no syntactic link to the main clause....
Yes, those are natural. Without anything in context to make it more specific, one would generally take it to mean that they had made less/more progress in their studies - either for the "age" case if it was a kid, or the "my class" case whatever the age.
As another answer says, for the idiom to work the change has to be at least metaphorically capable of motion:
This is good:
So, you haven't changed your position, have you? Not even an inch.
A general purpose thing-you-haven't-done is the iota, a greek letter meaning "tiny thing" idiomatically in English
So, you haven't changed your mind, have you? Not ...
Your question asked whether you could end a sentence with "used to". The answer is "yes", especially in informal speech. However your use of "have" is in error.
You have to find a new shop when you are no longer able to go to the shop that you used to.
Many strict grammarians in the past considered it wrong to end a sentence with a preposition. It was ...
As in the question linked in comments, Direct object of the verb "want", we are dealing here with a catenative verb. The direct object is him, and and the remainder, "drop his keys", is the catenative complement. What's different here is what sort of verb is used in the complement.
Catenative verbs can take gerunds (or gerund phrases), and infinitival ...