Moreover, they are causing the disappearing of several lakes, which are endemic wetlands of my region vital to the wildlife.
disappearing is incorrect here, because it is a verb, and you want to describe the result, which would take a noun form of the word. Hence disappearance would be the correct choice. Similarly, the following sentence would go:
Yes, it can be countable - but note that if you have a large stock of widgets and someone else has a large stock of widgets that they give to you, you still only have one stock of widgets- it is just a larger stock. So for them to be countable, it has to be two different types of thing, or at least in two different places, or differing in some important way....
Yes, there's a little difference.
...I was thinking you missed my message
means that I had come to the conclusion that you had not gotten my message.
... I was thinking you might have missed my message
means I thought there was a possibility that you didn't get the message. I had not come to a conclusion.
In use, a speaker could say either phrase and ...
I can only really speak from the perspective of the United States midwest, but to me, "loathsome" feels like the wrong word here. I want to explain why, but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything more than 'it feels wrong'.
I would suggest egregious instead.
It is rather odd for me. I do see this in some writing styles, and I take it to be a way of trying to represent the internal feelings of Herb, rather than describe the outer appearance of his actions.
It is a shortened version of "Herb looks in the pram. He is suspicious". So "suspicious" is an adjective, not an adverb. It describes Herb,...
I doubt there is a single universal term. Random DuckDuckGoing produced links to:
The City of New York, Department of Sanitation.
LA Sanitation and Environment
Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation.
I used both "sanitation" and "garbage" as buzzwords. Looks like "sanitation" is the preferred term. Understandably so ...
I think you asked this question a fortnight ago. I will try to be clear.
The Mona Lisa is a painting. It is also a work of art.
The Mona Lisa is NOT an art form.
The Mona Lisa is NOT a 'form of art'.
You only need TWO expressions:
1 Work of art:
The Mona Lisa is a work of art. It is a painting.
Michelangelo's David is a work of art. It is a sculpture.
We don't use size-adjectives - like big, large, little or small - when describing rain. We describe its density, using light or heavy.
Note too that rain in this context is singular.
There will be light rain at about noon.
There will be a shower (or showers) around noon.
In English, a person can be described figuratively as a 'parasite', but there would be contextual words, e.g. 'A person who is nothing but a parasite saying they (gender-neutral) are going to get a job'. Saying a 'parasite saying they will get a job' is nonsensical. You would not suppose that a leech, a tapeworm, nematode, etc, could speak, get a job, write ...
It is not natural to use either aloud or loud in your sentence where loud is an adjective.
"Loudly" is associated with the meaning "in a way that makes much noise", whereas "aloud" can be used but in a different sense - not typically with the verb "eat/chew." So the best choice would be "loudly."
In my ...
"Loud" is an adjective. "Aloud" and "loudly" are adverbs. Hence it is always incorrect to say "eat loud". It should therefore either be "eat loudly" or "eat aloud."
But what does "eat aloud" mean?
When you do something "aloud", it means you are making a specific effort to be ...
One of use of "apparent" (likewise "apparently") is literal - the word means that something is observable. The other use is the opposite - it suggests that some people claim to have observed it, but you have yet to see anything convincing yourself. It could be described as a sarcastic use of the word, and often is said in a sarcastic tone....
“Tinged with regret” is a stock phrase, but not an idiom in the sense of having a meaning at odds with the normal meaning of the words in the phrase.
The primary meaning of “tinge” is “faintly color.” So “white tinged with red” indicates something that is not a pure white but has a very slight red tint within the basically white color, something between pure ...
My sister has a baby
indicates that she is the mother of a child that is under three years old. It does not necessarily imply that she was ever pregnant: the baby may have been adopted.
My sister is having a baby
indicates that she either is currently giving birth or is currently pregnant and expects to give birth.
Two different meanings of “have” are in ...
A. "My sister has a baby." - This would mean your sister has given birth already(or adopted etc.) and her child is still a baby. She is no longer pregnant with the baby mentioned in the sentence.
B "My sister's having a baby." - This means your sister is pregnant. She will have a baby.
Technically, it could also mean that she is in ...
I was surprised to see that the dictionary definitions of these two adjectives are so similar, but the examples given for each are in line with how I am used to seeing them used in context.
Experiential tends to be used to describe things like training or learning - things that perhaps 'intangible'. I've seen experimental theatre described as 'experiential' ...
They are both correct as you have identified.
There is an implication of dissapointmeant with both of these phrases so I wouldn't say it's necessarily correct that 'live up to' suggests higher expectations.
"I thought the movie was going to be amazing but it didn't meet my expectations" is a perfectly natural sentence and clearly suggests high ...
If you want to measure the synonymous weight (my suggestion for the name) of a word, then I assume the units will be plain numbers (i.e. the number of synonyms the word has). You can define it as such if you are writing about it.
As for a source - it depends on your familiarity with technology. If you are good with computers, you could for example write ...
Photography is a fascinating art form.
Photography is a fascinating form of art.
On the face of it, these mean the same thing.
I personally detect a slight difference. Sentence (1) assumes the reader already knows that photography is an art form. It merely tells us that it is a fascinating one. Sentence (2) informs us that photography is a form of art. It ...
They are very different:
"Because" introduces a reason for something
"For" introduces a purpose.
The only reason they are ever interchangeable is that sometimes the reason and the purpose may be the same thing.
For example, if your Doctor told you to eat more fruit because your health was poor, the reason for eating fruit is your poor ...
No, they are not generally interchangeable.For the reason that/for various reasons and famous for are fairly standard expressions. However, you could say
I don't eat meat because of my objection to killing animals/because I object to...
“better” is being used as an adverb here. You can also do the same with “best”.
If X is a better (or the best) solution to problem Y, then you can say that “X better (or best) solves Y”.
Note that X is often implicitly compared to the status quo, such as “we can better serve our customers by staying open an hour later (than we do today).”
The specific ...
This is not an idiom, it's just one of the standard uses of the verb to get. If you look up the get in the dictionary, one of the definitions is:
3 b : to obtain and bring where wanted or needed
So in the usage get something to someone, it means that you are obtaining something and bringing it to someone who wants or needs it. You can use this definition ...
Besides means including. Apart from means excluding. In this sense, 'apart from' is similar to 'except for'.
Let us make it clear with two examples;
Besides John, I invited all the boys.
It means I invited John.
Apart from John, I invited all the boys.
It means I didn't invite John.
She could not talk with other people besides Mom and Dad.
It means she ...
Yes, they mean the same thing. Yes, “with each other" is redundant.
EDIT: As the comment below points out, I did not address
We have still kept in touch.
Because “keeping in touch” implies a continuing process, the use of the present perfect does not make much sense to imply recent past. If that is what is intended, one way to express that thought is
That is much more likely than this.
The reason has little to do with whether it is near or far, as suggested by Joshua.
When we are referring to objects or places that are physically present, we do indeed prefer this for closer objects.
But when we are talking of things that have only been referred to linguistically, we usually use that, especially in ...
I think "that" is the most appropriate thing to say.
You are supposed to say "this" when something is close. So if something bad has happened, you should say "I did not want this to happen."
You are supposed to say "that" when something is distant. So if something bad hasn't happened yet, you should say ...
The idiom is "little to no", and it applies best to non-countable nouns but possibly to countable nouns too. This is the "proximity" rule, where the closer word tends to determine agreement.
So we can say
There are a few apples left
There are no apples left
We can't say
There are little apples left (unless we mean the remaining ...
Ah, one of THOSE questions. We native speakers have trouble with them too, because they are not so much a test of your linguistic skills as they are of your ability to form associations and think critically. They almost never include the obvious answer (the fact the narrator really admired her sister) as an option, instead making you choose an option your ...
“Long gone” is often more about the sense that the situation is irretrievable.
As an extreme example one might say “The chance to react to her opening statement was long gone.” as soon as she starts her second sentence, a matter of seconds.
It is a highly inexact idiom. Perhaps somewhat analogous to “the bird has flown” meaning the opportunity has passed. ...
I just want to emphasize that there is really no minimum limit. If you were looking forward to eating some strawberries but your roommate threw them away a week ago because they were already moldy, then your roommate might reasonably say, "Oh, those strawberries are long gone." It all depends on the context.
a. and b. are correct and very much likely, while c. is not.
There is difference in the three terms you so suggest. Going one at a time.
Over the past year, Nikodinov had been making eye-catching progress under the guidance of her coach, Yelena Tcherkasskaia, a former Bolshoi ballerina.
eye-catching - immediately appealing or ...
'In parenthesis' literally means 'in brackets', like (this). You place brackets round a phrase when it is intended as a comment 'by the way' and is not part of the main argument. Here, the writer just says that the note is 'in parenthesis' without actually putting it in brackets.
in parenthesis is a phrase of the word the parenthesis.
in parenthesis - As a digression or afterthought.
Digression means something that is not particularly needed in the context-of-speech and can be remarked as a brief sideline or departure from the main subject. That means this sentence was not entirely needed here, but he said it ...
I hate her. She's always treated me so badly that......
a. I'm even reluctant to mention her name.
b. I'm reluctant to even mention her name.
They are both correct but the meanings are slightly different.
In (a) "even" modifies the entire phrase, "reluctant to mention her name" it does not modify the adjective "reluctant" ...
"Relate" means to show or establish a logical connection between two things. When you relate A to B, either (1) there is already a logical connection between A and B, and you are making an effort to make it clear, or (2) you are establishing that logical connection.
I am writing a book that aims to relate the current political atmosphere to the ...
This isn't an idiom. The meaning of the phrase follows from the meaning of the words. "Gone" is the past participle of "go". "Long" is here acting as an adverb modifying "gone". It's not natural to say "long gone expired", because "gone" is not an adverb, and so can't modify "expired". You ...
Is there any definite period for the usage of the idiom "long gone" in a sentence: could it be used if the time has only passed a year?
Much less than a year :-)
Long Gone Before Daylight - it's clear to any competent English speaker what has happened there.
If the balloon popped by itself, then:
the balloon popped.
the balloon (has) burst.
If the balloon was actively popped by a person:
Derek popped the balloon.
The balloon was popped.
The balloon has been popped.
The following does not look like common usage, since popped and burst are more often used as verbs than as adjectives:
the balloon is popped *
"last week" does indeed mean "the week before this one".
What you do is say "the last week", but then you need to specify what of, that is: "the last week of November" or whenever.
"I finished it last week" means "I finished it in during week before the one we are in today".
"I finished it the ...
If you want to say the fourth week of the month then the best way is
the fourth week of the month.
Note that even here there is some ambiguity, if the month starts on Wednesday, is the first week 1st-4th of the month, or is it Wednesday 1st to Tuesday 7th? Or does the first week start on Sunday the fifth, or even on Monday the 6th?
Now, what do you mean by ...
"He relies on a rental agreement which is long gone expired"
This is incorrect because "gone" and "expired" have almost the same meaning.
You could say "He relies on a rental agreement which is long expired"
"long" can be used with many words. "gone" just happens to be one of them.
First of all "long gone expired" is pretty much never correct. I would say:
"is long expired",
"expired a long time ago", or
"expired long since".
for a legal agreement.
"Long gone" suggests to me either movement or natural change.
He sniffed the air, but the scent was long gone.
Here "long gone"...