(e.g. World of 7 Billion)
Benefits of universal education
In the world’s more developed countries, school attendance is compulsory and public schools provide a free education for children and adolescents
Education is a human right and a strong catalyst for social progress. According to UNICEF, getting every
Practicable is "able to be done or put into practice successfully."
Feasible is "possible to do easily or conveniently."
They are listed as synonyms of each other.
So in an official sense they are interchangeable. From a native speaker I would think of practicable being applied to an action that is repeatable stemming from the word practice. Example- "...
The machine should be serviced after 10 uses. However, it is more likely that a machine service would happen on a regular schedule rather than after a number of uses. The machine should be serviced every 6 months.
They aren't the same.
"Feasible" means "you are able to do it". "Practicable" means "it makes sense to do it".
For example, "we'll build a bridge across the Atlantic as soon as it's feasible" would mean, as soon as we figure out the challenges in building the bridge, we're building it regardless of cost or potential use.
On the other hand, "we'll build a ...
Formally a "usurer", more colloquially a "loan shark". These terms imply illegal or at least highly immoral actions. "Usuary" has a religious connotation, and is not often seen outside of that context. Traditionally Christians were forbidden by their religion to charge interest on a loan. You could use "moneylender" with less explicit negative meaning.
I have recently had a similar conversation with my daughter. I told her things like "You will regret it later if you don't" and "This will really help you down the road" and "All of the best jobs require a college degree".
But I agree with @Smock about using "It's for your own good". That's really only used when you have control and are forcing someone to ...
I agree with your assessment of the difference in usage between advantage and virtue.
If you use virtue alone, it indicates morality, such as your example Patience is one of his virtues. Though for it to sound more natural, I would say something like Patience is a virtue, and he has it in spades. (Having something "in spades" means you have a lot of it.)...
Stick with "Husband" and "Wife" for the full, legally married terms.
However, the "pre-marriage contract" you are attempting to (re)invent for your story is a betrothal. The people thus joined are each others' "betrothed".
A betrothal was a semi-binding contract, typically with "exit" clauses for both parties. Sometimes - typically among nobility - a ...
In legal contexts, one can say: legal wife versus common-law wife.
But I am his legal wife. [a character might say]
That means I married him under the law.
In a dialogue, here, we'd say legally married or legal wife.
Civil registry in AmE is vital records office. Civil registry is used in English sometimes but it is inevitably a translation from French ...
The two are already married on paper.
Btw. the reverse case happens all the time. People get married without going to the registry office - they have a big party, perform the required rites at their local place of worship and then they are considered husband and wife for all purposes that matter to their community. It is just in places with a sufficiently ...
Attention: My answer is not officially recognized in any textbook or by any english language scholars.
I admit that my answer manipulates the rules of english to conform to a specific style of writing used by very small group of authors and scholars.
If you use my answer in any other context besides creative writing or poetry, ...
I would actually say none of your examples are particularly idiomatic, and I would personally just say:
Highly skilled translators.
My reason is that "expert" refers to someone who is a master (having complete mastery) of a particular field, and while translation is a field of work it is fairly unique in that you could be skilled in just 2 or 3 different ...
He/it has caused a loss to me.
It's not grammatically incorrect but it sounds stilted.
"a loss" can also suggest that you lost something other than money (an object, something metaphysical, ...). Lost money (in your intended sense, most notably that of your first example) is often referred to as a cost.
For your particular examples, I would use the ...
Yes, you can say that someone caused you "loss", although it would be phrased:
He caused me a loss.
He caused me to suffer a loss.
This is normally used specifically for financial losses, and so only your second example really fits this.
In law (UK law at least), when someone causes any kind of loss to another person that loss can also ...
If what's important here is not the exact way it's written, but to have dialog that sounds more natural in this convoluted scenario, this is how I would write it:
A: This is not something to call [...] when I'm officially his wife.
B: But maybe he doesn't really consider you his wife yet.
Why use adverbs instead of adjectives? Because we skip the ...
It looks like you are inventing a type of marriage. There isn't - and cannot be - a 'usual term' to describe something that you have invented.
In Australia, de facto is a term used for what seems the opposite of your situation, namely where people are carrying on as if married (including mortgages, kids etc), but haven't been to a registry/ceremony to ...
A downturn is a slowdown in economic activity. If the slowdown drags
on for a prolonged time, a downturn can lead to a recession.
So in a way, a recession is more severe than a downturn.
Also, in my opinion, I think a downturn gives more emphasis on the event (economy slowing down) while recession implies the period of it happening.
You are more likely to hear the word "downturn" in connection with a specific market than about an entire country. Most markets have what is known as a market cycle. You don't measure how successful a business is by what they make in a day, but over a measurable period. Depending on the type of business that could be a year, but not necessarily so. An ...
Although the term recession is frequently used loosely, as in the definition you give, the technical definition of a recession is:
Two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product:
A downturn simply means a decline in economic activity. It's a loose term that is typically used to refer to the short-...
The first one is fine.
The second sentence is not a complete sentence because it is missing a subject.
As for the last one, I think you should go with It's very cold inside the cinema.. As for the meaning, it is more specific but overall mean the same as the first sentence.
In contemporary English the word "wife" by itself carries the meaning of an official legal wife, and no other modifier or adjective is needed. If you wanted to be explicit you could say "legal wife", but it's really not necessary. The only time I'd expect to hear it is discussions of polygamous or polyamorous families where only one woman can be considered ...
Partly jokingly, we could say 'lawful wedded wife', which was a phrase used in the marriage service of the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer and possibly other churches. (Some people very jokingly say 'awful wedded wife'!)
A is either someone's wife or she is not. The term husband or wife, used alone, implies officiality. If a couple are merely living together without having gone through a form of legal marriage, each may be called the "common law" husband or wife of the other. I suppose you could call her his "legal wife", but it would sound odd to Western ears. As Ben Voigt ...
I won't say they are used interchangeably in your sentence. Although "except" means "excluding / not including", its usage here is not suitable as you seem to exclude yourself from the group of people who are in the room rather than including yourself in the counting or not.
"Besides" usage is correct. It means "in addition to", and the count would be four ...
Growingly would not often be used here. We sometimes use "growingly" to modify adjectives
He is growingly unhappy with his position at work.
The most common word in your example would be "increasingly", or you could say "more and more". Using "increasingly" is more formal and adult.
Air transport is being used more and more to transport...
Recognize means identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again (Google dictionary). You usually recognize something the moment you see it.
Diagnose means identify the nature of (an illness or other problem) by examination of the symptoms (Google dictionary). Diagnosis usually involves a series of tests, so it's not as simple ...
You can say:
Put your pride aside.
Put aside your pride.
that will fit the meaning you want to convey perfectly which is, in other words, according to Longman Dictionary:
To try to stop thinking about a problem, argument, or disagreement, because you want to achieve something.
They have provided a similar example where they used "pride":
While both have the same meaning, let is the less formal of the two (also permit, which is considered more formal than allow). The big difference: the verb that comes after let does not require to to precede it. The verb that comes after allow requires to before the verb. Note the following, the 3rd example is the one I typically use:
I asked the teacher to ...
I think you have a point - bundle up can be thought of as put on a lot of layers, while wear warm clothing might mean put on thick and insulating clothing. But bundle up could also just mean put on a warm jacket - and I think this phrase is more colloquial. Dress warmly, which you also mentioned, is pretty much the same. I don’t think there’s much difference ...
You are right, "bundle up" implies a lot warm clothes (see the definition of the Collins Dictionary), while "wear warm clothing" doesn't necessarily imply a lot of things to wear (however, the person who this is said to may still decide to put on a few warm things - it's often the case, but the speaker just says "your clothes should be warm," "make sure what ...
I think both are fine given different contexts.
If this is casual conversation, I would use:
'I thought you were dead.' Because if someone just found out that someone is alive that they thought was dead, I don't know they would care about using 'had'.
Note: in American English, a school of thought is to not use assume. The reason is, by making the ...
Here are the two sentences in question:
(1) People should be allowed to specify their own destinies and futures.
(2) People should be allowed to determine their own destinies and futures.
English is a very complex language, which is one of its best qualities. My Grandfather, who was born in Austria, was a professor of linguistics at a major U.S. ...
This is a good example of how to understand the nuance of any particular word by looking at all its related words, especially with regard to any common origin. In this case:
specify: specific, specification, specimen, special, species, etc.
All these words have in common the idea of uniqueness, that there is something particular that separates them ...
Explain is about causes and motives. Describe is just about events.
Imagine a policeman finding out what happened.
Policeman: Please describe what happened.
Witness: I saw the man slap the woman on the back.
Policeman to man: Please explain what happened.
Man: I was trying to kill a mosquito.
Complete understanding suggests 100% understanding, but the level of professional expertise is usually not described this way. Because, who really understands everything from his/her field?
So, you can say in-depth understanding or comprehensive understanding, which may or may not be 100% understanding.
Those are both normal verbs in that usage, although a native speaker would probably say, "How did you get the idea for your book," referring to the idea that was used in the book rather than the idea of the book itself.
Sentence 2 needs to be recast a bit to use "get together":
Get all the staff together in my room for an urgent meeting.
Have all the staff get together in my room for an urgent meeting.
This is because "gather" and "assemble" work as verbs in the imperative, while "get together" does not in that construction.
I agree that "gather together" is ...
In US usage, I would not expect to see any year described as "year 12" but rather as "12th grade" or "senior year in high school". "Senior year" alone could be confused with "senior year in college" unless the context makes the choice clear.
Also, in US usage, it would be unusual to speak of "doing" a subject. The most common verb would be "take", followed ...
“Gather together” is an example of redundancy. Also, for #2, “a” does not apply very well, but it still works fine.
I hope this helps and if you want more information, please ask specific questions in the comments.
As the other answer says, in the examples they are identical.
Note you can separate:
He helped his son to put his new model airplane together.
But if it's not about a machine or something which is clearly made of pieces, there are cases where you can't use assemble. In this case, most usually separated, put together means put next to each other:
He put ...
Yes, both of those are perfectly natural in the sentence, and there is no significant meaning change. "Assemble" is slightly more formal. In a technical discussion of, say the inventions of Henry Ford, I would expect to see "assemble" rather than "put together". But I can't think of a context where one would be acceptable and the other wrong, nor ojne where ...
"I don't like to watch movie" is ungrammatical; with a countable noun you need an article for the singular form.
"I don't like to watch this move" would be fine, or even "I don't like to watch a movie" though out of context this sounds a bit odd. Perhaps as a response to "would you like to go out for beer, or stay home and watch a movie" ...?
The linked ...
In current usage, to extinguish is used for fires, and extinct is used for species and volcanoes.
In the sense of volcanoes being no longer active or species no longer existing, the OED says of extinct (for this purpose): "in modern use it usually denotes a state without reference to the action from which this results."
So you have to say:
"... may have ...