That is quite a sentence. I'm a native speaker and a computer programmer and it took me a little while to understand what it meant.
Let me paraphrase.
You call function foo().
You then call function foo() again, while the first call is still running.
The second function being called should, in no way, affect what happens in the first call.
Perhaps break it down like this
Functions shall be implemented such that they may be interrupted at any time by a signal, or may be called by a signal handler, or both,
so they must be written like that, but what are the consequences
with no alteration to earlier, but still active, invocations’ control flow (after the interruption),
So when they come ...
The phrase "as soon as January" is correct as it is. "As soon as at January" isn't idiomatic.
Here is a dictionary that shows "as soon as" as a conjunction when it is followed by a clause, and as a preposition when it is followed by a noun.
Wiktionary "as soon as"
I came as soon as I could.
"in a week" can either mean one week from right now, or a week after starting the job. So, for example, someone might say:
"I'll finish the job in a week." If they just accepted the job and are telling the client when they'll have it done. They'll have it done 1 week from today.
You could also say "I'll finish the job in a week" ...
Your suggestion changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Removing "are" from the second line and inserting it below there, before "Holy Waters" is something else actually.
If you paint the same face, and set a winged rose or a rose of gold somewhere about her, one's thoughts are of her immortal sisters, Piety and Jealousy, and of her ...
"Where do you see yourself in five years?"
This is a standard job interview question and specifically means “where do you see yourself five years from today?” If I got in a time machine and jumped forward five years, what would I see you doing?
However, that doesn’t mean you are going to take exactly five years to do it. If your goal is to have a ...
something will happen in 5 years
Means by the time 5 years have passed something happened, may have happened before the 5 year mark, but has already happened.
To be more precise about it, you could say:
something will happen before 5 years passes
something will happen within 5 years passing
Some people use technology to search for information.
Some people use technology for searching information.
These two sentences don't mean the same thing. The first one is about searching for information, while the second is about searching information.
These two, on the other hand, mean the same thing:
Some people use technology to search for ...
So, you can see that we need a conjunction to for the sentence to be clear!
This makes no sense, and is most likely a typo for:
So, you can see that we need a conjunction too for the sentence to be clear!
("Too" means "also" or "as well".)
Alternatively, you can delete word "to" altogether.
I did some research and came to several potential conclusions, depending on exactly what the author of your book intended. I'll share what I found and let you decide what fits best for what you were reading.
My First Conclusion
This is the correct sentence:
He was performing the same steps as she
From Lexico Definition of her
Is it incorrect to say I am ...
The word for is used to address the object, target or use of an action/activity.
On the other hand,the word 'to' is to show the direction towards some object.
As per my knowledge,
"Ocean garbage is a serious problem for us." should be considered.
He was performing the same steps as hers.
He was performing the same steps as she was.
The expression is: the same as, not "the same like".
However, you might write:
He was performing (steps) like her (where like follows performing.)
I checked hundreds of examples from the reliable sources including YourDictonary. The structure itself is less used. Said that, the word maintenance of something is a common practice. So, you need a noun doing maintenance of something rather than maintenance done by someone. Active/passive style difference there.
Nevertheless, I could find both the usages - ...
You can definitely use them but if you are to have it in resume, the better composition (and common as well) is -
*...have expertise in something"
Check here on Cambridge-
She has considerable expertise in French history.
The government sent in troops to the region to restore order. That is proper phrasing.
They didn't send them to the region.
They probably sent munitions and supplies to the region.
If people enter a place, they are sent in or into the place.
The cops sent in sharpshooters to deal with the gunman.
in = more specific and means: into a place, region, area, etc.
The government decided to send troops to restore order in the region.
What I infer from the sentence is that, the Government has taken a decision of sending troops in the particular region for restoring peace and order. The decision is taken sitting in the high halls of the ministry. The action though may be taken immediately or at a future point of time.
"Whom" should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.
He was talking with the woman the name of whom I couldn't remember.
This is correct because you are using it with the preposition "of".
He was talking with the woman whom I couldn't remember the name of.
This doesn't sound so good. You've ended the sentence with ...
This one is the most natural in everyday speech:
Let's go in the front door. The back one is locked.
These are also correct:
Let's go in through the front door. The back one is locked.
Let's go in by the front door. The back one is locked.
These are much less usual and slightly awkward (even though "Let's go inside" on its own is fine):
"There's a squirrel on the tree" is fine and perfectly natural.
If you wanted to be more specific then (noting it's near the bottom of the trunk in your picture) you could say "There's a squirrel near the bottom of the tree" or (if it's moving) "There's a squirrel climbing down the tree" or "running down the tree".
Compatible to or compatible with
Short answer: with.
Slightly longer answer: You can find this information in virtually any dictionary.
compatible adj. (often compatible with) ( https://www.lexico.com/definition/compatible )
"This software may not be compatible with older operating systems" (the emphasis is present in the original at https://...
If just say "think", that means "believe". Using that in the imperative is very unidiomatic, and doesn't really make sense: you can't order someone to believe something. And if you try, it's really quite presumptuous. You can say "consider this" or "think about this", however.
As @FumbleFingers says they all mean the same thing really, but they imply different amounts. All over usually means everywhere, so that has more of a sense of covering the floor - probably not literally in this case, but definitely making a mess!
On doesn't really imply any particular amount. It could be a little, it could be a lot, you just know that ...
It's "I capture and edit in my own way" though you should probably add what it is also.
"I capture and edit video in my own way" (assuming it's video)
Implied information, should be avoided unless it's obvious what it is.
Both are correct. But there is still a nuance of meaning.
I am invited to meet with the president. ( I have a meeting with the president) - the verb meet is
Whereas in your first sentence: the verb "meet" is transitive(with
object). ( most likely to mean = be in someone's presence );
Given that you are using the ...
There are very, very few words or phrases in English that are entirely interchangeable – each word and phrase has its own nuance.
When speaking any language, people include intonation and gestures to add meaning.
Thus, as to and about are not fully interchangeable in all cases: As to is a free modifier that modifies the main clause as a whole, about is a ...
Yes they are interchangeable and there aren't big differences between the two. However, I prefer using about, because for me is more informal, but you could have used both.
Here you have a deeper explanation of the little differences that there are between those two:
differences between "as to" and "about"
It is correct in the sense of departing on the bus, Similar to travelling on the bus, and arriving on the bus. In all these constructions, on the bus tells us the mode of transport by which you departed, travelled or arrived. The use of “the” may refer to a particular bus but in this usage may also be nonspecific. I went on the bike may merely mean I cycled ...
They are synonymous (in US English).
But you might want to consider how the word choice will be perceived by the reader. past is a description of a specific kind of motion, in which Sara is physically close to you, and her body is moving relative to your body in space. by is more general and does not specifically describe motion.
So I recommend using past ...
In this specific context, they mean the same. "Walk by" seems to be favoured slightly more by American English speakers and "walk past" by British English speakers.
Note though that in British English, to "go by" somewhere can mean to go via that place, or even to visit that place. For example "I went by the shops today&...
It is incorrect because after "surprised" you use a preposition if you want to introduce a nominal element and not a conjunction ("that" is a conjunction). The prepositions you can use with this adjective are "at" and "by" (ref.).
I am surprised at how much money they want to pay him. (in increasing use since about ...
In this context, that is “a conjunction used to refer to something that has been mentioned or was involved earlier, or to something that is already known about” cambridge dictionary
When acting as conjunction, that introduces a clause with a verb. To refer to “how much money ...” neither refers to any defined thing nor to a clause with a verb. Better would ...
“at” and “toward” have the same meaning of in the direction of the man. They alone do not imply he was hit.
“on” technically means the same, but it feels like the bullets are better aimed.
That said, if you unleash a “torrent” of bullets, that changes things. We don’t normally expect this from cops, but it’s common in drive-by shootings: if you spray a crowd ...
Yes, you can say that. I might be a little more clear to say "It is to the left of block two," since there are also blocks to the right and above and below. But in practice, many people would just say "next to."
The only problem with your quoted question is some lack of punctuation, and a preference for spelled out words in a sentence. ...
 the document I sent you ___ .
 the document I sent ____ to you.
Yes: both noun phrases are OK.
In  the covert (hidden) relativised element, marked by the 'gap' notation ___ has "document" as antecedent and is direct object of "sent". "You" is indirect object.
In , again the covert relativised element with "...
Your examples are not complete sentences.
The verb “to send” can be transitive or ditransitive, so both of these are allowed:
I sent the document to you.
I sent you the document.
In both cases, “the document” is the direct object. In the first, “you” is an object of the preposition “to”. In the second, “you” is the indirect object of “sent”. They mean ...
The second set of examples are not correct. This is how they could be rewritten, while still keeping the noun.
... was an act of kindness ...
You showed kindness when you ...
You showed generosity when you ...
Your beauty shone through when you ...
Let me know if you need a more precise answer.
There is a slight difference between the two expressions.
A lack of protein remains his most critical issue.
This means that a lack of protein was his most critical issue, and it is still that.
A lack of protein remains as his most critical issue.
This may mean that his most critical issue was something else, for example, dehydration, but now lack of ...
It is not a preposition. Prepositions are used to indicate relation between two (or more) separate objects; here the pyres and the steel chambers are the same objects (However, "of" is a preposition, showing relationship between the pyres/steel chambers and the fires, which are separate objects, with the former containing the latter).
I would argue ...
'We lost the game because of a mistake of one of our players.'
Your original sentence is fine.
Your final version will be fine too if it uses 'made', as StephenS has suggested, or 'committed'.
'We lost the game because of a mistake made/ committed by one of our players.'
Someone is only a "student of" a broad field of study, not an individual class. If I say,
I am a student of philosophy.
Then that means that I am generally interested in philosophy. It doesn't necessarily even mean that I'm pursing a formal degree in philosophy, just that it is one of my personal interests. (Aside: If I wanted to say that I was ...
All three are possible, but they all mean different things. Since you’ve not told us what meaning you’re after, it’s not possible to say which you should use.
You are working for a company if it is your employer. “I work for Bloggs plc”.
You are working at a company if it’s not your employer but you are physically working at its premises rather than your ...
A native speaker would use for.
The difference, I would suggest, is as follows.
I'm working for XYZ.
Here, company XYZ is spoken of as a group of businesspeople for which one may work. You could also be working for an individual.
I'm working at XYZ.
Here, company XYZ is spoken of as a location at which one may be and work. You cannot work at an ...
No, it is not strictly necessary.
Over serves to indicate some kind of distance, whether physical or figurative.
There seems to be a semantic advantage of including the word, because it's reminiscent of the following sentence:
"We're at Grandpa Joe's farm now, but you can head on over to Jimmy's place, and get the tractor."
It indicates a distance ...
Determiners and adjectives cannot be placed in front of pronouns. The 'what' is a pronoun, and the 'more' is either a determiner or an indefinite pronoun ('makes you happy' modifies the 'what'). You cannot place the determiner 'more' in front of the 'what', so the other solution is to use the structure 'indefinite pronoun + of + N(P)'. This is why. Hope I ...