Even as a native speaker of English, it took me a couple a couple times to understand this. It is a perfectly good sentence, though, and I've seen sentences like this many times in writing. I'd say that it almost certainly is the most native way to say that, even if is a little confusing. (It actually has a very literary sound because of the fact that it ...
The sentence below contains a comparative:
This tea is as cold as that tea.
However, rather than comparing a single object to another (this tea to that tea), there can be a comparison between two different adjectives used to describe the state of the tea. Two different states can be compared:
This tea is as cold as that tea is hot.
So, let's apply that ...
The key concept in your sentence seems to be intensity, or high degree.
In other words, her welcome was intensely warm, or there was a high degree of warmth in her welcome.
Tom's welcome (if it can be called that!) was intense in coolness, or there was a high degree of coolth in Tom's "welcome."
Both welcomes had an intensity about them but in two ...
While there are grammar rules (people can recognise something as ungrammatical, even if they understand it) There are very few, if any, strict rules about meaning.
If a phrase of English has had the intended effect (of communication, of persuasion, or of beauty etc.) then it is correct.
The usual idiom is to "coin a word". This was developed from the ...
"For better or for worse" is a common and very old idiom. It means "under any conditions", as you probably already know.
The expression appears in the poem Confessio Amantis, written circa 1386 in Middle English:
"For bet, for wers, for oght, for noght."
(rougly translated "for better, for worse, for something, for nothing")
It later appeared as ...
I think you are right, and the key here is in the definition you supplied, which doesn’t just say “opposite”, but also “different”, which doesn’t necessarily imply contrast.
In the example you gave, “present aspect” and “conditional sentences” are introduced as two different things.
1B is incorrect "I'm sure they will have been looking for those bank robbers"--makes no sense. "I'm sure they will have found those bank robbers by morning. By tomorrow morning, they will have been looking for those robbers for over 20 hours." makes sense. You need a reference of a stopping point in the future.
"You had a good day?" is okay. It is a question that is not using the normal form of a question, though. So it's basically making a statement and asking for confirmation, similar to "You had a good day, right?". This makes sense if you already have some reason to assume that their day was good. For example, you could say it if they come inside laughing and ...
To say 'take care' to someone on leaving their company is really a way of showing affection or politeness. It is perfectly normal for one person to say 'take care' and the other to reply e.g. 'Yes, I will. You take care too.'. Either a departing or remaining person can start the exchange. There is no rule.
"You too!" is a possible reply, or "You take care too!" Your reply includes the subject "you" but it is not in the right place.
Since "Take care" would normally be said to someone who is departing by someone who is staying, it might not always be appropriate to say "you too". Instead "Thanks" or "Thanks, I will", or "Will do" may be better replies. Or ...
Not exactly. "Now" is the clearly specified moment that it's stated.
"By this time" is more usually used with other than the present tense. E.G.:
If he hasn't called me by this time tomorrow, I'll call him.
The short answer is: Yes.
In table parlance:
You can put the soup on the table.
You can put the water on the table.
In the case of soup, it will be in a tureen and served into plates at the table.
Or: It can mean put the individuals bowls of soup on the table, which have already been served.
The same goes for water except: the water would be in a glass ...
"Firstly, secondly and thirdly" are perfectly normal in British English, and not considered to be 'Americanisms'. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken. The choice between first and firstly is as much a style choice in UK English as it is in US English.
Yes, the phrase "the tangible" refers to "tangibles" in the sentence.
The word "tangible" here is a countable noun, meaning something that's real in a physical way. You can use the definite article "the" before a singular noun to refer in a general way to people or things of a particular type. For examples:
This books gives some useful tips for the ...
Consider this example sentence:
In many retail transactions, the physical object has been replaced by a digital one.
Which object in which transaction am I referring to? No single object right? But "has" is still correct. The example you gave is similar. The singular here is used to speak in general.
The statement is actually correct.
an average protein molecule present in the human body has around 300 chemical units called amino acids
This refers to an established scientific fact.
If we reduce the statement:
The researchers, including those from the Salk Institute in the U.S., said that the microproteins had fewer than 100 of the building blocks....
Yes, "I get tired quickly" is perfectly good English, as is "I get tired easily." Each has a slightly different meaning, so the best choice would depend on your intended meaning.
"I get tired quickly" emphasizes the amount of time that it takes for you to get tired, perhaps while engaged in a specific activity mentioned in the context, such as walking or ...
While I know the "rule" is that you hyphenate when it's used as a modifier and don't hyphenate when it's not, I am going to beg to differ. I am writing copy with phrases like this: "an end user sends the message," and I think that NOT adding the hyphen is odd and eye-confusing. (Maybe not for techies, but what about the not-necessarily high-tech end users ...
The construction known as for a person indicates publicly known information, or a common nickname or alias that person goes by, or an action or event that the person is famous for. You say that information is known to indicate it is a matter of public record, or at the very least something the intended audience is expected to know.
When talking about ...
Your B examples are facts about a person. They may or may not be known about the person. Your 1 to 10 examples are what fact the person is known for.
B1 might be about me (how did you guess?) but I'm not famous for anything yet (until the police knock on the door).
Putting the two types of statement together:
Drew Scanlon founded the Cloth Map company ...
There are two clauses:
It is time
we should accept ...
But you have no conjunction to link them together. This is possible in some cases, such as some relative clauses:
He is a man we met at work.
But this doesn't quite work here, the clause "we should..." doesn't describe time. A better way to express this is
"It is time for us to accept...",
The sentence is understandable if you read it as giving two conditions for supporting a politicial party.
... his party was ready to support any political party in the State [that was (1)] willing to take them [and (2) also willing to take the] Common Minimum Programme.
I assume that the "Common Minimum Program" is an important policy that is supported ...
The word former is actually wrong here, not superfluous.
Here is the sequence of events:
2017–2018: Mr. Malik was the Governor of Bihar.
2018–today: Mr. Malik was the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir.
Today: Mr. Malik became the Governor of Goa.
The word former is wrong because it indicates that Mr. Malik had already ceased being the Governor of Bihar ("the ...
Ordinarily, I'd expect Mr. Malik is the former Governor of Bihar. But that clashes with the adverbial clause before he was [moved elsewhere], since at that time (before being moved), he was the incumbent Governor, not a former holder of the office.
It's quite possible the writer originally used is + former before deciding to add that conflicting adverbial ...
You use the definite article "the" when you are referring to something specific that would not otherwise be recognised as such. For example, you might say "the car" when referring to a specific car, because there are many cars; but if you had already identified a specific car by some other means there would be no need for the definite article. You wouldn't ...
M. Chinnaswamy Stadium modifies outing, so let’s ignore that for a moment:
... opening batsman Mayank joins his Karnataka mates in their outing against Chhattisgarh.
Maybe you’re seeing outing against as a phrasal verb, but it’s not.
2 : an athletic competition or race
also : an appearance therein
So outing roughly means ...
An 'outing' in British English (India was a British colony) is a trip or visit - e.g. an outing to the zoo, to the seaside, to a park, etc. In a sports context, it can mean to a visit by a team to a stadium or ground for a match. Karnataka is a cricket team. They played a match against Chhattisgarh (another cricket team) at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium.
The first 3 versions mean pretty much the same, but would probably be better expressed as
I will do the same amount [of it] as you.
In most cases the "of it" is optional. "do" could be replaced with a more specific verb to clarify. For example
I will eat the same amount of it as you.
I will pay the same amount as you.
I will run the same ...