Sisters reunited after ten years in checkout line at Safeway
The example has a misplaced-modifier problem and can be interpreted as in A1 below, however unbelievable it may seem.
A1. Sisters had separated and spent their life in a checkout line at Safeway for ten years. Then, they reunited.
A2. Sisters separated ten years ago and they had spent their ...
Here “setting the original value as this” is a participle phrase modifying “our new function”. I'm not entirely sure this is good style, but it's something I've seen (and written) frequently in program documentation.
Here, the participle phrase describes something the function is doing during the main action of the sentence. So, while the function “invokes ...
Perhaps try something like this: I have trouble mustering up the discipline to create and carry out a plan to help me move on from this situation.
Or, I lack the discipline I need to create a workable plan to get through (or get past) this situation.
The author is deliberately providing this as an example of an ambiguous sentence.
The phrase "with a telescope" could be modifying the noun "woman", or it could be modifying the verb "to see". A woman with a telescope is a woman who has a telescope. To see something with a telescope is to see it by using the telescope. So the ...
It is ambiguous (and is a well known example of an ambiguous sentence)
This is the point. English has ambiguous sentences that are only understandable in context. Also every other natural language has ambiguous sentences!
But when writing mathematically you need to be unambiguous. (So how can you do maths if you need to express mathematical ideas in ...
As you've noted, "lost" can be a verb or an adjective:
It is lost (adjective)
It has been lost (verb)
Using it as a verb about oneself is different to an object, because when said about an object you mean that you do not know where the object currently is; when said about yourself it doesn't mean you cannot see yourself, it means you do not ...
Sue was surprised and said, “What the hell!”
Sue was surprised as she said, “What the hell!”
Sue said in surprise, “What the hell!”
Sentence 1 implies a clear reaction. She was surprised, and after that (in response!) she said "what the hell!" The two events did not happen at the exact same instant; there is a 1-2 sequence.
Sentence 2 describes ...
To me the first and third suggest that something surprised Sue which led her to say "What the hell" immediately. Not quite simultaneous: the surprise came first and prompted the outburst.
The second suggests that Sue saying "What the hell" about something and while saying it something surprised her. That might be something completely ...
There have been exceptions — the Nepali Maoists, for example, managed to partake in power after peacefully ending the civil war — but if the Indian Maoists’ denunciation of these steps taken by their Nepali counterparts are any indication, such a step does not seem to be in the offing.
[T]he Nepali Maoists, for example, managed to partake in ...