You use "in a sense" with meanings. As in:
I say (this). In a sense, it is true. In the other is not.
In this particular case, IF there are ONLY two possible senses, you can use "on one hand".
But there can be more senses to a statement. In that case, "on one hand" is not suitable, unless you are willing to get to the part with: "On the fifth hand...".
To "weigh [something] down" means to put a weight on top of it to push it down.
In your game, if a spear is triggered by the weight being applied to a "pressure plate" on the floor, then having a weight on it continuously could prevent a spear being triggered when the player walks across it.
For how many weeks is the lecture series given?
This is the passive voice of "For how many weeks does the university give the lecture series?" A possible answer would be "The university gives the lecture series for six weeks". In that sentence, "give" is the verb, "university" is the subject, and "lecture series" is the object. "for six weeks" is a ...
A catch basin is a low spot in the ground where water gathers. It's usually built to keep the water from accumulating in other places where people don't want it to be.
In this context it's used to mean something that collects power. The assumption here is that when one religion becomes dominant it is a 'catch basin' for power and if it has enough power, ...
Yes in this context that means "week after week, month after month, year after year". I might have written "week by week ..." with the same meaning.
It is worth noting that this is a translation, the judge apparently spoke in German. The use of "for" may echo a usage that is normal or idiomatic in German, but unusual if translated literally into English.
To poke your nose into something, means to interfere with something that doesn't concern you.
If someone pokes their nose into something or sticks their nose into something, they try to interfere with it even though it does not concern them. -- Collins Dictionary
To involve oneself in an intrusive or nosy manner into something that is not one's ...
As an antonym for "sooner or later" in this context, you can use "never" or "not ever." Alternatively, you can rephrase with "don't ever."
• This is what I never intend on disclosing.
• This is what I don't ever intend on disclosing.
• This is what I don't intend on disclosing. Ever.
• This is what I don't intend on disclosing. Never.
• This is what I ...
Absolutely not. Your construction is just about understandable, but you are mixing two different 'measures'.
"Every other [event]" always means "Every second [event]" so you cannot mix it with a specific number, though most native speakers would assume that the specific number was what was intended.
Although your sentence is syntactically sound, it's not entirely semantically sound. You can use which, in turn here, but the existing construction is missing a parallel component.
It would sound better with an additional piece and some slight reprhasing:
His empire created the foundation for the Roman Republic, which had some great works, and later the ...
In context, it seems as though meaning 2a from the page you linked is most applicable. The sentence, however, is confusing, as it seems to state the opposite of the actual effect. Were I to read this sentence knowing only that the subject was a platforming game, I would certainly take it to mean that whatever feature was being described would increase the ...
The greater buckets are allocated:
As a sentence it's almost valid, "The greater the buckets allocated" would work, however the meaning is different. It would mean you're using bigger buckets not more buckets. Objects of variable size can be greater and lesser, to mean bigger and smaller, but you'll rarely hear it outside specific circumstances such as "...
Way back then - indicates something that happened in the past, but the time is usually specified in some previous instance. So it's like an additional form of wording to the previous already stated time.
Way back when - refers to something that happened in the past, the time is not specified here by previous instances, and the word "when" symbolizes an ...
There is not much difference, if any, between using "could you" or "would you" in a polite question.
In other contexts, "could" (as the past tense of "can") expresses possibility or ability, whereas "would" (as the past tense of "will") expresses intent or certainty. The implied certainty of "would you join us?" may be a little bit more demanding (and thus, ...
When talking on the phone it is perfectly OK - and recommended - to use:
"Is this Peter?"
Of course, it is still understandable if you use other sentences, but they do not sound as English.
If you prefer to be informal, you may use:
Hello Peter, is that you?
If the Skype account is "Peter", there is a big chance that the person at the other ...
You asked about differences between your initial sentence and the other three. One is that your initial sentence could be taken to mean that the speaker started to walk at three o’clock, rather than at age three. For example:
I started to walk at three, and by five or five fifteen I had reached the town.
That ambiguity does not exist in the other three ...
You can analyze this problem in terms of the relationship of reference.
In both examples, "share" unambiguously refers to "seven percent of the vote.
In the second example, "the party's" modifies "share" (which share?), clearly referring, by repetition, to "the party" which is the subject of "win" in the noun clause "the party could win..." which is itself ...
I was surprised to see comments from native speakers unfamiliar with the expression (very well-known to me). But apparently this is primarily a British English colloquial usage...
From Cambridge Dictionary...
run a mile (UK informal)
to be extremely unwilling to be involved:
He'd run a mile if I asked him to marry me.
As it happens, the above ...
After reading Zeeshan's succinct answer below, I'm rewriting mine. (I would delete it, but I can't because it is accepted; so I'll see if I can add something.)
I'll use as an example a nutritionist (Charles) giving advice about nutrition to a couple of people (Alice and Bob). In this case, the question you describe wanting to ask might go:
They spoke to ...
The prepositional phrase in life is used for Looking for Answers (not just for Answers).
Looking for Answers (to/for your questions) in Life?
The prepositions to and (rarely) for are used to refer to questions.
It sounds correct to me. The only shortcoming is that the word "others" refers to two different groups of people in close succession. If this is an important phrase, rewriting it more clearly is not a bad idea.
Maybe something like
Some were made to cry, others to cause crying.
or, since this sounds a little formal,
Some were made to shed tears, ...
In positive statements the use of the auxiliary do is always optional, and it conveys emphasis (usually contrastive).
The basic objective meaning of the statement is unchanged, but emphatic do adds a connotation of "contrary to what you thought/you asked/I suggested/somebody said".
Examples of emphatic do:
Have you any coffee? No, but we do have hot ...
The meaning is the same but the two constructions are typically used in different contexts.
We have..... is a simple statement of whatever items someone may have to offer. If a customer were to ask a greengrocer what fresh products were available, the latter might reply: **We have lettuce that just in, freshly picked cabbage, newly delivered cauliflower.......
Some people are never going to agree with you on this, so it's no use beating your head against a wall trying to convince everyone.
I think the sentence makes perfect sense, and "it's no use" is a necessary part.
As you have said, beating one's head against the wall is trying so much to do something (fruitlessly). So, it's no use trying so hard to do ...
Because it is an idiom, and we do not "adapt" idioms.
If I am not wrong,
more than meets the eye
is the shorter form of
more than what meets the eye
Since "what" has the value of a singular, it requires a verb in singular, even if it ("what") is missing.
Cross-training is when each person is trained to do other people's jobs, not just their own. When done even half-way competently, cross-training has several advantages:
Each person knows that someone else can check their work.
Work does not stop just because one person is out of the office or on vacation.
Employees can relax when they go on vacation, ...