Yes, this is a common, idiomatic response among English speakers where I live (California). It's casual, so it's mainly used for the kind of casual situation where people would say "Thanks" all by itself, like in the following:
"Could I have some of your sunscreen?"
"Sure, here you go."
It depends on the person you are speaking to and the way you say it.
I don't think sure is a common way to respond to thanks, because it's potentially ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a shortened form of:
, which is equivalent to Anytime! or You're welcome! It could also be interpreted as:
Sure you are...
, which is a sarcastic (read: ...
There are many ways to handle this situation, more than I could list. As with any language, if you are good with words you can think of new, clever expressions. Some common examples:
Hi, I feel like we've met before but I'm afraid I don't remember your name.
I'm sorry, but have we met?
Hello, excuse me, but I can't recall where we might have ...
It's a command telling the person who is sorry not to be sorry, generally because the speaker believes that person has nothing to be sorry for (in other words, the speaker believes that person has done nothing wrong).
You are asking if it is acceptable to write:
The answer is: no, it is not acceptable.
A contraction is normally (and traditionally) of two words, not three. So when you intend to say "it is not" you can either contract "it is" to "it's", or "is not" to "isn't".
Exceptions to this would fall under the description of nonstandard, colloquial ...
You use "so am I" when you are responding to some form of the verb be:
I'm hungry. So am I.
I'm eating ice cream. So am I.
You use "so have I" when you are responding to some form of the verb have. You will always use "so have I" when have is the auxiliary verb for the present perfect:
I've eaten too much ice cream. So have I.
You may use ...
Neither B nor C is acceptable; live would be interpreted as an intransitive verb (meaning "to be alive", not "to reside in"), making the overall meaning "I'm not dead".
A is acceptable. The verb do substitutes for the entire predicate live in New York City.
Yes, I live in New York City.
Yes, I do.
These sentences have the same meaning.
in which situations it would be OK, and what exactly would it imply?
It would be okay in the USA.
If you said it in the UK, it would imply that you are using American English.
As has been said in comments, this may or may not be understood in other places than North America. If it is understood, then it is through watching American TV and cinema.
Here 'Could' is the beginning of a polite request phrased as a question, not a real question. An appropriate answer might be "Yes", "OK", "All right", "Sure", etc. An answer using a modal verb (apart from e.g. "I can" or "I will") might be unusual or incorrect, for example "I could" would ...
This is very tricky, and I think this question deserves its own answer.
The best way for Student B to chime in really depends on how Student A answers the initial question:
Student A: I have no question.
Student B: Me, neither.
Student A: I don't have any questions.
Student B: Me, either.
Student A: No questions from me!
Student B: Me, ...
As Andrew mentioned, there's lots of ways to handle this, but one thing to keep in mind is the slight nuances in phrasing between some options.
If you just really don't recognize the person at all and are wondering how they know you, you might phrase your response as a question, such as
I'm sorry, have we met before?
This is a fairly polite way of ...
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT to snailplane's answer:
a) Yes, I do.
b) Yes, I do live.
These two examples show two different uses of do.
In (a), do acts as a “pro-verb”, analogous to a pronoun. In this role it stands for an entire VP: not just the verb but the verb and its complements and adjuncts, just as a pronoun stands for an entire NP ...
"It is not" can be contracted into a single contraction. This contraction is different from the one proposed by the original poster. According to Merriam-Webster, "'tain't" is at least 245 years old. Because it includes "ain't", it is not Standard English.
Having looked at the clip, the language is a bit strange, but it makes sense because the context is one of a recent airplane crash, and the speaker is checking over (one of possibly many) bodies. So there's an implicit question being answered "How's Nando? [Is he alive?]". And then the other guy responds "I don't think so". The context is important because ...
They're not quite right. A better construction would be like this:
Speaker A: What did John force Mary to do?
Speaker B: Buy the house.
Speaker A: What did John talk Jim into?
Speaker B: Believing the news.
OR, more formally, Speaker B might make a complete sentence in each case:
Speaker A: What did John force Mary to do?
Speaker B: John ...
"Don't you know?" people ask such kind of question is because they though you should know. so your answer to this question is more likely to be negative. you should answer with the reason why you don't know him.
such as "No, I never heard about that."
It's correct (as a shortening of "I live in Tokyo"), but redundant, and doesn't add any clarity, so it would probably be omitted.
It sounds odd because with the question "Which city do you live in" your brain assumes an answer "I live in" and then you add "in Tokyo", giving "I live in in Tokyo" (obviously ungrammatical). Your brain needs to do extra work to ...
It is a perfectly normal response that people will understand if you say it to them. I say of course when someone says Thank you, and I see that as a normal response also. The same with no problem, you're welcome, yes, etc. I see it is as a much better response than receiving no response at all.
Student A: I have no questions.
Student B: Me, too/Me, either.
As the student B is reacting to a negative statement made by A, you can use Me, either or Me, neither in informal AE. In BE, you say "Me, neither".
You say "Me, too" if you are reacting to a positive statement as follows:
Student A: I have a question.
Student B: Me, too.
As usual it depends somewhat on the context, but the phrase "Don't you know?" is very often not so much a question as an expression of surprise, as in:
Alice: I'm going to visit Bob in hospital this afternoon
Cathy: My Goodness, what happened to Bob?
Alice: Don't you know? He's had appendicitis
In which case an answer isn't really required. If Alice ...
Some of the confusion arises from the facts (a) that the premise behind the question is the opposite of the literal words of the question, and (b) that the question does not actually seek a literal answer.
"Don't you know?" is basically a rhetorical question. The person asking that question actually assumes that you do in fact "know," and since it is ...
There are 2 common uses for this phrase - there is the 'slightly posh' "Don't you know" as an end-of-sentence, which is essentially just emphasis & not requiring an answer. Not common these days in speech but you'll see it in older books & films.
The main one is generally where you might have been expected to know something - so, often a rhetorical (...
It probably adds nothing to what others have suggested, but I thought I'd add an addendum to the existing answers.
As others have explained, people don't really expect a detailed answer, but it could be a good opportunity to start a conversation. If you don't have anything to say, 'Not much' is a perfectly acceptable response. You don't have to explain what ...