The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Nocturnal558
About
User Name: Nocturnal558
Forum Rank: Newbie
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Last Visit: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:46:31 PM
Number of Posts: 38
[0.00% of all post / 0.05 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Her var det fint lite folk, gitt!
Posted: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:02:12 AM
Den forrige posten min her gir vel en ganske god idé om når jeg var her sist, men jeg fikk jo fortsatt emailnotifikasjonen... Ser ikke ut som om du har store problemer med norsk, for å være ærlig! Bare å spørre i vei; er ikke sikkert at jeg svarer like raskt som nå, men når/hvis jeg har tid kan jeg sikkert svare på noe! Send meg en melding kanskje, får vel notifikasjoner da og.
Topic: Her var det fint lite folk, gitt!
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:59:46 AM
'Meget' er ganske likt 'veldig', men er kanskje ikke like intenst. Det er som regel et adverb, det forteller om graden av et adjektiv. Jeg tror den store forskjellen kanskje er hvor formelt ordet er, det er nok ikke like vanlig å bruke det i dagligdags muntlig samtale som å se det i en mer avansert artikkel. Som kanskje forklarer hvorfor forekomsten på nettet er så forskjellig.
Topic: Invite or invitation?
Posted: Sunday, May 10, 2015 12:40:21 AM
An invitation - noun

To invite - verb

'An invite' also exists as a noun, but I think is used mostly in spoken language as a shortened version of invitation.

I'm a language student though, not a native speaker.

When I used to play online games, I played with many UK-based people, and we would refer to invitations to group missions and tasks as 'invites'. It is a slightly more economic version of the noun, so it definitely has its uses. I'm sure both forms are used in both American English and British English, though maybe it is more common in American English as thar suggests.
Topic: Towards destiny
Posted: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:23:20 AM
World wrote:
I'd like to know if this "sentence" is correct:

Yearning to fly towards destiny


It is indeed correct. However, as your quotation marks imply: it is not a sentence. This is simply a noun phrase.

There are no spelling mistakes or grammatical mistakes.
Topic: in means enter
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:56:21 AM
I see no error in the example sentence.

However, 'enter' and 'in' are not synonymous. 'To enter' is a verb, while 'in' is a preposition.
Topic: We can't go outside now. The smoke is too serious.
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:52:53 AM
If you are talking about air pollution, the appropriate word would be 'smog'.

If there is smoke outside it means something is burning.
Topic: Is it a typing error?
Posted: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:03:20 PM
Audiendus wrote:
Nocturnal558 wrote:
The rest of the world did not have to know about the beforehand work.

The rest of the world could not 'see the work produce the bombs' if they did not know about the work. They could only be aware of the bombs.

What amazed the rest of the world was purely the destructive power of the bombs, not (as in the case of the workers) the contrast between the mysterious work and its spectacular result.


Yes. I was simply trying to explain the (flawed) logic of the sentence. I understand the difference myself.

Nocturnal558 wrote:
I do agree, however, that it is not an ideal sentence.


I meant that when I wrote it, and I still do.



Is there a way to express the intended meaning of the original sentence in one valid sentence though?
Topic: Is it a typing error?
Posted: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:54:50 AM
"Seeing the work they had not understood produce the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs amazed the workers of the Manhattan Project as much as the rest of the world"

'Seeing the work the workers had not understood produce the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs amazed the workers of the Manhattan Project as much as seeing the work the workers had not understood produce the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs amazed the rest of the world.'

In the fully expanded the sentence, 'they' fairly unambiguously refers to 'the workers'.

The rest of the world did not have to know about the beforehand work. I assume the workers only found out about the bombs when the whole rest of the world did: after the bombs were dropped.

'Seeing the work the workers had not understood produce the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs' does not only refer to the work itself, but also the result of said work: the bombs. The two bombs were, needless to say, something the whole world found out about.

That is how I made sense of it. I do agree, however, that it is not an ideal sentence.
Topic: Is it a typing error?
Posted: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:49:58 PM
thar wrote:

the workers had not understood their work (they did not understand what it was for)
they saw it produce the bombs
seeing that happen, they were amazed
as amazed as everybody else


It is a poor sentence because it says that the rest of the world also saw their work produce the bombs. Since the whole thing was secret, the rest of the world did not see that. The rest of the world saw the result, the bombs. They did not see the Manhattan project workers' work produce the bomb. The bombs presumably came out of 'nowhere' in terms of the research and development, for those not in the project.



thar, I like your SVO breakdown of the sentence.

I only have one issue with it; you seem to contradict yourself.

You explain the meaning of 'as much as the rest of the world' as:

thar wrote:
as amazed as everybody else


However you conclude that:

thar wrote:

It is a poor sentence because it says that the rest of the world also saw their work produce the bombs.


When I read the original sentence what I understood was that 'as much as the rest of the world' implied 'as much as it amazed the rest of the world', which would agree with how you explained the meaning of the sentence, but not your conclusion.

With your explanation of the grammar and early_apex's explanation of the meaning, it seems to me that this sentence is perfectly valid. Except that it was presented without a full stop, of course. :)
Topic: carcass
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:52:16 AM
As a heavy metal fan, I have to admit that I find this this to be one of the most badass words in the English language.

Carcass is the name of a death metal band, formed in 1985, disbanded in 1995 but reformed in 2007. They have been considered pioneers of melodic death metal since their 1993 release: Heartwork. I wish I could say more about them, but I have only seen them live once and not heard many of their songs.

Slightly more on topic:

The image that the word 'carcass' brings to my mind is a slightly rotted dead body of an animal (I suppose mostly mammals, to some big reptiles it would apply, but I am not sure about fish/whales) or a human. To me, the difference between 'carcass' and 'dead body' when referring to humans lies in that 'dead body' is more ambiguous; it does not have the same physically descriptive connotation.

I am curious to know what 'carcass' implies to native speakers.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.