copy and paste this google map to your website or blog!
Press copy button and paste into your blog or website.
(Please switch to 'HTML' mode when posting into your blog. Examples: WordPress Example, Blogger Example)
Is it correct to say only animals sweat, humans perspire? I think the link you gives explains the situation pretty well To a modern English speaker, sweat and perspire mean exactly the same thing, except that perspire is a little more formal and delicate But it sounds silly to this American English people to say that animals sweat but humans don't
it is worth doing somethin = something is worth doing? It's worth noting that only that version has any real currency The three other permutations (with worthwhile and or to try) are all syntactically valid (and effectively, mean the same), but they're rarely used
word choice - Replacement for man in Man is the only animal that can . . . The human race is a poorly defined collective and not an animal, so the second form is probably best as Of all the animals, only the human race can make use of fire and finally in the third form humankind is a single word and plural Humankind are the only animals that can make use of fire But the statement is false in every case
Difference between infected with and infected by I found both these two versions are being used Infected with coronavirus Infected by coronavirus Cambridge Dictionary gives different definitions for them: to pass a disease to a person, anim
meaning - to reach the end vs to finish - English Language Learners . . . It's a bit of a bizarre construction, especially combined with 'lunch' but I'd say that what you've been told is true: to be " finished " is clear-cut, you're done with the object of the sentence to have " reached the end " is a little ambiguous, and while it might mean you're done, it may also imply just that you're at the end stage of the object of the sentence It would only work with an
Does word someone refer to both an animal and a human being or only . . . It could be used for (non-human) animals IF the user is implying that the animals have a "being" that is equivalent to humans For example, in fantasy literature or New Age Spirituality "He had the feeling that someone was watching him " could mean a wolf in the forest, if the writer is ascribing some level of sentience to the wolf, for example
word choice - Should I use who or which when referring to a . . . As a general rule, " who " should be used for people " Which " is used for things With animals, it depends on context Animals are often anthropomorphised in literature, and also in daily life (especially pets), and so may be referred to in the same way as a person Some examples in media referring to a specific animal by its species, not by its name, but using "who" include: The Cat Who
Usage of only to - English Language Learners Stack Exchange A point about the grammar "Only to" is not a grammatical unit (not a constituent) The "to" belongs with the verb "have" "Only" is a focusing adverb modifying the to-infinitival clause "to have some connection or relevance to the present time "