I think you want to say:
Thank you for standing in for me last week. ...
Thank you to those of you who stood in for me last week. ...
Then a slight edit: I brought you the XXX cookies should probably read: I brought you some XXX cookies
"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 ...
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".
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 ...
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.”
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 ...
"tête-à-tête" is taken from French, and it literally means "head-to-head", better translated to English: "face-to-face".
It is used for the discussion of two persons, when they concentrate their attention to each other (unlike having a casual conversation while each of the persons is concentrated on some other activity). Usually is a private conversation, ...
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 ...
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/...
You can understand this sentence as
These are not like the typical U.S. trade associations, which provide important services, but often these are the services that increase the success of efficiency of individual members.
It means not always but sometimes these services have the characteristics of the services that increase efficiency.
Your question is pedantic in that it is excessively concerned with correct details (which of two similar terms should be used). The answerers suggesting differences between the two terms are splitting hairs – that is they are positing minor technical differences between two very similar things.
The OED defines splitting hairs as:
b. to make fine or subtle distinctions, esp. in argument or controversy; to be over-subtle or captious.
While a pedant (or someone who is pedantic) is:
2. A person who excessively reveres or parades academic learning or technical knowledge, often without discrimination or practical judgement. Hence also: one who is ...
[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....
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 ...
Sentence 2 is not OK. Removing "while" and "are" transforms the first clause into a fragment, incorrectly placed ahead of the next clause. "Most politicians" is the subject, but here is no verb associated with it.
Put into a more natural order, sentence 1 is:
This candidate stresses that improving the lives of the citizens is a matter of import, while ...
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.
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.
What is a more proper way to say, “You are your self first supporter”?
"self first" uses two words to modify "supporter." The words must be grouped by using quotation marks. (Most, if not all, compound adjectives are grouped by using a hyphen.)
You are your "self first" supporter.
I've found that making a sentence simpler works best. In your case, ...
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 ...
"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
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.
Two Patterns You Can Use with Verbs of Perception
I saw him eat [eating] his dinner.
I heard him drop [dropping] his keys.
I watched him wash [washing] the mud off the dog.
These verbs of perception can take the bare infinitive or the gerund.
These verbs of perception function in a particular way:
Hear, see, watch, notice, smell, observe and similar ...
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 ...
This is a construction derived from Latin, called the 'Accusative with infinitive clause.'
In "I heard him drop his keys." it's a 'bare infinitive' without the 'to.'
From Wikipedia on Infinitives
"Clauses with subject in the accusative case
Following certain verbs or prepositions, infinitives commonly do have an expressed subject, e.g.,
I want them to eat ...
I think it [drop] is closest to the bare infinitive.
Compare "For him to drop his keys is unusual."
Yes, "him drop his keys" is a noun clause.
From Grammar Monster:
Bare infinitives also follow other verbs. The main ones are feel, hear, help, let, make, see, and watch. This time, there is a direct object involved. For example:
Dawn helped her friend ...
I would say that "it was a good read" is a more idiomatic way of saying a book was enjoyable, at least in BrEng. Still, "a nice read" also sounds fine.
"Nice reading" sounds more like a compliment on someone's reading ability, as "reading" is the action or skill of reading. It is what teachers write on children's reports when they have read well out loud - "...
It's perfectly correct as a grammatical construct, yes. However, it is indeed off in this particular instance. For example, this sentence would be fine:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing famine in Springfield.
Here, the famine was something that occurred in the town, so the phrasing is both grammatical and natural. However, Autism ...
I would say
My left turn signal was on!
If you wish to use the word "indicator" I suggest not repeating that in the sentence. Exempli gratia:
Hey! I used the indicator to show I was turning left.
In my country we're not going to say "indicator."
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 ...
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'.
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 ...
I’ve never encountered consider me in, but I was able to figure out the meaning which, I suppose, is close to
count me in
I am in
take me into account
I am sure count me out exists, but I have no idea if consider me out correct and idiomatic.
Well, yenaled is not an English word, that is for sure.
However, this coincidence is interesting - read backwards, you will get:
which is definitely an (english?) name.
might actually mean:
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 ...
Yes, if after saying this, you will, or are planning to, do the same thing 3 more times, then you can definitely say, "Sorry, this was like the 4th last time I do this", or more like "4th last time I plan to do this."
I see nothing wrong with the use of "4th last time" here.
I read the statement "this is like the 4th last time I do this." to mean you have stated "this is the last time I do this" three times already.
Unless you have said this three times, then I would say you are not using the word "4th" correctly in this manner.
If you are trying to say "I am only doing this three more times", then you could say the phrase "...
involved (in sth) usually means taking part in something; being part of something.
He was not involved in the conspiracy.
I want to meet the person involved in this project.
A company's HR department may also be involved in making people redundant. It implies department is part of or takes part in the process of making people redundant.
In common, modern parlance, you will hear you reap what you sow. Another common expression equivalent in meaning is simply (all) actions have consequences.
You reap what you sow per the ODE means "you eventually have to face up to the consequences of your actions", not that you have to recover on your own or whatever.