The use of more ands than customary is a figure of speech called polysyndeton.* Its purpose is to…make the sentence longer. In this case, the extra ands in place of commas emphasize that the list of states is haphazard and incomplete.
You are right that the following sentence is a fragment. Properly, it's part of the previous sentence, in apposition with "...
You're looking at two separate idioms:
"Cranked out" - to produce something in large amounts.
"With abandon": showing a complete lack of inhibition or restraint.
Your assessment of the phrase is pretty accurate - it means they mass-produced something with very little care or concern for quality.
What you are looking at is prose written as it might be spoken extemporaneously, what is sometimes called a "stream of consciousness" - as thoughts occur to someone. When people are speaking in everyday life, they don't always plan out their sentences. You might begin speaking and have a broad idea of what you want to say, but you may not have thought about ...
How does Tim would break the window?
The sentence is wrong because there are two helping verbs in the sentence: does and would.
How does Tim break the window?
How would Tim break the window.?
The above sentences are both correct.
How does Tim break the window?
implies that Tim has the habit of breaking the windows and we want to know how he does ...
Your intepretation is correct
If x, then y
means the same as
If x, y
The punctuation in the sentence you quoted is not standard: usually a comma is inserted between an initial hypothetical clause and a following consequent clause. Except for the missing comma, the sentence you quoted is grammatical and idiomatic.
However, the structure of noun ... ...
There is a conjunction; it's just that it's been omitted—but still understood to exist:
Sometimes the symptoms are so slight [that] you do not even know you have an allergy.
It's common to omit the use of that in many constructions. Idiomatically, the two parts of the sentence are understood to have the relationship between each other made explicit by ...
In practical terms, there is no difference.
However, it's possible to construe a subtle difference.
1. He sat at the table and consumed a pie.
This doesn't necessarily mean that he consumed a pie at the exact time that he sat at the table. In theory, the sentence could also describe him sitting at the table, getting up, and then consuming a pie (while ...
Without a break in the wall is not an idiomatic expression, but the speaker (the one complaining) is trying to emphasise that the person he's listening to speaks so much that their words are like a wall which can't be penetrated.
I wouldn't use "without a break in the conversation" as that would de-emphasise the relentlessness of the speaker, since a "...
I think Jeff Morrow is right about the sentence being "convoluted". The same idea can be conveyed in a much simpler way. Given that it is from a TED talk, I presume it was rehearsed.
From Cambridge, "insist" means "to say firmly or demand forcefully."
The speaker has many stories, many experiences - some negative and some positive. All of that have shaped ...
"Insist" is being used in a stlyized way that is currently fashionable in academic circles and those who deal with academics.
What is meant is
To insist that the only stories worth paying attention to are these negative ones results in overlooking the many other stories that formed me and thereby distorts my experience.
Some people may like the style. ...
It is figurative language and so is subject to interpretation. But I think that this means that, through her tone of voice and pace of delivery, the actress was able to convey that life had defeated her and left her quite uncaring.
Without context it's a nonsensical statement, but, given the narrative, this can be read as:
Bulldog showed an excessive pleasure in devouring classes.
make an excessive and obvious show of pleasure or desire.
"he was drooling over your photo on the inside cover"
but what does "courses" mean? dictionary.com shows:
'a direction or ...
I haven't watched the episode in question, but I'm pretty sure you misheard the quote and that Phil actually says:
Bulldog drool courses through his jowls!
"Bulldog drool" means the drool (or saliva) of a bulldog, which is a breed of dog. It is also common in many schools and universities to use that school's mascot as a demonym, so that "a Bulldog" is a ...
I think that you are mistaking the meaning of room in that sentence.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary
1 - a part of the inside of a building that is separated from other
parts by walls, floor, and ceiling
2 - the amount of space that someone or something needs
The second meaning is the one used in your context.
The text is not ...
Will is the simple future verb form. It indicates items that (with the best understanding) are going to happen.
Would is a conditional verb form. It states that something happens based on something else. Sometimes the "something else" is mentioned, sometimes it isn't.
I will attend the party.
Means I'm planning to Go to the party.
I would attend ...
I feel like the expression is more often get a hold of (oneself):
get a hold on/of (oneself)
get a hold on/of (oneself)
To begin to control one's reactions or emotions after not having done so previously.
After losing her job, Pam needed to calm down and get a hold on herself in order to drive home safely. You're not going to be able to think ...
They all seem fine. For 1.1, I might be more likely to say "the bus station is quite far from here" or "pretty far" or "very far". 2.2 seems a little unusual, but correct. I would be more likely to say 2.1 than 2.2. 2.2 you could say if contradicting someone who just said 1.2.
"Far from..[x]" states a relative position from which you are measuring the distance. "Far away" presumes you are speaking relative to your present location.
Of course, if you say "far from here", in in certain contexts that could mean the same as "far away" - for example, if you were speaking face-to-face with someone, your present location is the same, so ...
I would’ve been late if my mom hadn't woken me up on time.
The sentence above is correct. It's a third conditional. We use third conditionals talking about unreal situations in the past. "In fact, I wasn't late because my mom had woken me up. But I would have been late if she hadn't woken me up." You can read more about conditionals here.
Since you are ...
Consider the following sentence:
This day will constitute the greatest challenge our production will ever face.
The helper verb "to will" is used to indicate future tense of the other verbs, in this example to constitute and to face. Some other languages may not need a helper verb to change a verb to future tense (for example in French one would write ...
'At best' is used here to say that, for campaigners, there are a range of possible outcomes, none good, from an 'emotional burst', and that being counterproductive is the least bad one. If you have an electric shock, you will be startled and surprised at best. Less good outcomes could be that you are slightly injured, badly injured, or, at worst, killed.
The main verb of that sentence is in the past tense ("had [to live]"). So the subordinate clause in question ("how other people reacted to them") exists within the context of that past narrative describing this experiment.
Naturally the verb telling about people's behavior (in that past situation) would be in the past tense.
To pronounce can mean "Declare or announce in a formal or solemn way".
A man who has been shot may be pronounced dead by the police. His attacker may later appear in court and at the end of the trial the judge might pronounce his verdict and pronounce sentence: he might impose a prison sentence or pronounce the death sentence.
He says, Dangerous Liaisons ...
Dumbledore kept that sister of his quiet for a long time.
You should parse the sentence like this:
Dumbledore kept [that sister of his] quiet for a long time.
This would be identical in meaning to:
Dumbledore kept [his sister] quiet for a long time.
Normally "kept quiet" would be interpreted literally, that he kept his sister from making noise, but ...
"Sister of his" is another way of saying "his sister", so "of his" is not attached to "quiet", but rather "sister".
"Kept that sister of his quiet" means that he did not talk about his sister, specifically hiding information about her. You can find it by looking up "Kept quiet".
This quote is probably easier to understand if you rewrite it as "kept quiet ...
The text you highlighted contains two very common idioms:
That [x] of his.
When people say "that [x] of his/yours", it is usually said disparagingly. For example:
That dog of yours kept me awake all night with its barking.
Instead of saying "your dog", the inference is that the dog isn't even worth naming or referring to properly, hence "...
All citizens share some responsibilities. Scientists have some additional social obligations. This is because they have access to specialized knowledge of how the world works. This information is not easily accessible to others.
I'm guessing the as distinct from tripped you up there, perhaps along with the rather meandering sentence structure.
I just entered my house to see xyz
It is also past tense.It talks about the recent past.
I just finished it
The above sentence is in the past.If we use Just, it does not mean that it is present.It refers to recent past.
I have just entered my house.
It is called the present perfect which talks about the recent past but completed action.
I have ...
Will describes an action that is expected to take place in the future. It expresses certainty.
Would describes something that was in the future at the time of the original action, but is no longer in the future now. It can also be used for hypothetical statements, where the action occurs after the hypothetical situation described.
Let's see what ...
When an author is creating a title for a video or article or something similar they usually want it to be very short, so that it easily catches the reader's attention. They might be competing with other authors to try to get people to read what they wrote or watch their video. If the title was too long the reader wouldn't bother to read it and they would ...
I feel certain there is an answer to this question already, but I can't find it. So, I will answer it briefly.
Both simple present and present continuous tenses can be used to discuss the future when the future is considered to be "near" or when you are discussing a plan.
The concert starts at 6PM tomorrow.
The concert is starting at 6PM tomorrow....
The language I speak before learning English was unique.
It sounded unnatural because the verb "speak" in these sentence. I changed it to a few variations.
It can be assumed that the person (let's call him Mr One Guy) is still learning English. The sentence makes no sense as it stands no matter how you rearrange the tense etc. It has no context and is not ...
The form suggested in another answer:
The language I have been speaking even before learning English is Unique
is not correct. That should be
The language [that] I was speaking before learning English is unique.
if "unique" is meant to describe that other language. However, if "Unique" the the name of an (imaginary) laguage, one might say:
Both OP's versions are awkwardly expressed, and #2 is also syntactically invalid because there's a missing second instance of the word is as highlighted below...
2a: How many people are there whose reason for [them] knowing who Joaquin Pheonix is is not the Joker?
Also note that although the "reflexive" pronoun them above is syntactically valid, it's not ...
Out of all your variations the possible options are.
The language I spoke before learning English was unique.
The language I used to speak before learning English was unique.
The other forms can not be used because speak refers to the present time*
These are not sentences. They may indicate an action, or a time period.
I am visiting my hometown this week. (action)
While visiting Tokyo I met Mr. Kurosawa. (time period)
Doing my homework is almost never interesting. (action)
"Farther" is a comparative form of "far" (see the OED).
The phrase "farther off" means "further away": that is, more distant.
A "familiar face" (see meaning 4 in the Oxford Learner's) is simply a face which is familiar; here it's being used to mean a person whom the character recognises.
So the phrase
"No one he knew, except a gentleman, and farther off, ...
In addition to the existing answers: whilst "go your own way" is the correct answer, I don't feel it is strictly an idiom as in word or phrase the meaning of which is not deducible from context. "Go" + direction, without a preposition, is common natural usage and "go your own way" is exactly analogous to "go up", "go down", "go left", "go right", "go this ...
Go your own way is perfect. You can find thousands of examples of how people use it in English on Google Books. There is even a well-known song by Fleetwood Mac called "Go Your Own Way".
Below is some explanation of why "Go your own way" is correct and the others are wrong or not as good.
"Go your own way"
In that sentence, "your own way" serves as an ...
In idiomatic English one would say
Go your own way
another English phrase meaning the same is
Plough your own furrow
"Go to in your own way" is not used as far as I know, whilst
Go in your own way
This rarely heard, but has the meaning "use the mode of transport you want to", for example go by bicycle possibly when most people would catch a bus. "...
Michael is a singular proper noun so we should say Michael has a tendency.
Option 2 is not correct. The it has nothing to relate to and as it is a pronoun (meaning it is used in place of a noun) it must have something to relate to. If there was something for it to relate to then we could replace 'it' with what it relates to and we would see that we would ...
Gusto: is an Italian term which probably entered the English language via lyric opera.
great energy, enthusiasm, and enjoyment that is experienced by someone taking part in an activity, especially a performance:
Everyone joined in the singing with great gusto.
This is not really about the grammar of when or where. These usually follow the normal rules for backshifting:
I like it when you sing that song.
I liked it when you sang that song.
This question is about the way we talk about stories - books, films, etc. We have the choice of talking about them in the present (as the timeless things they are) or ...
"With gusto" means enthusiastically. Its use here is slightly odd, but it seems to mean that "The universe will be enthusiastic about making your fresh ideas work". It says that whatever you decide to take on, the universe will make sure it will flourish.
(Whether to believe that or not is up to you)