What is Reddit's opinion of
Ludwig.guru?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ Ludwig.guru website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
68 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
>"Later went on" vs. "Went on" to win an oscar- Went on. More concise and establishes the same thing.
https://ludwig.guru/s/later+went+on+to+win
Although it may not be as concise, I think that "later went on to win" is the correct term to use and makes sense in context of winning an Oscar Award.
I don't think that's true - if we think about it logically "going on to do something" implies it happened later, so saying "later went on to win" is like a double future, if that makes sense. Saying "later won" would be grammatically correct but I'm pretty sure "later went on to win" is redundant.
And if you want Ludwig, https://ludwig.guru/s/went+on+to+win
>dependent
There's Ludwig.guru
I use the google chrome add-on, it makes everything easier!
For example, look at this screenshot: https://imgur.com/RVGe2N7
​
I'm a non-native English speaker, so I can tell you: It helps A LOT!
There is a much easier way for this and you can always use it yourself.
Your search term for this is called corpus. You can search any word in a corpus to see that word used in thousands of sentences.
Here is an example of a corpus website.
Also look for other corpuses. There are much better ones.
Even if it isn't technically the correct usage, it is still very common.
https://ludwig.guru/s/I+was+intrigued+that
Take a look there for examples of it being used in publications.
As a side note, I really suggest you evaluate how you interact with others. Nobody thinks you're funny or smart, you just sound like a dick. A lot of people, including myself, actively try to avoid people like you.
We have two sentences to consider:
- He has good memory.
- He has a good memory.
1 uses "good memory" as a non-count noun phrase. So, we do not use the determiner "a." This could mean that he generally memorizes things well.
2 uses "good memory" as a count noun phrase, which is why we use the determiner "a." This could mean that he has a singularly good ability to memorize things, possibly for a particular context.
However, the difference in meaning here is so subtle that most people won't consider the two sentences to differ in meaning at all. Both sentences are correct, but I find that most people would use sentence 2. Use sentence 2.
I give you some evidence showing that 2 is the most common phrasing: good memory | English examples in context | Ludwig
First, equating basic comprehension of words to compactifying informal sentences is one of the dumbest hills to die on I've heard this week. If their response to my statement was to try and correct grammar then they already lost.
Second, "i have tired" is correct English. Next time at least Google the fucking sentence before trying to teach others. Read a fucking book.
>lens
Shouldn't it be "... lens through which to view ..." ? I've heard this phrase a lot, but never heard "lens with the view of...". I heard "with the view of..." used before verbs ending with -ing. For example "With the view of obtaining the highest score in the grade, John did...". But I did not hear this phrase used with lens.
​
*Edit*: It is also seen from this website (https://ludwig.guru/s/as+a+lens+through+which) that the phrase "...lens through which to verb..." is used more often.
I know, I know.
But it’s a common idiom.
“Is anyone up for pizza tonight?”
“Are you up for visiting my sister?”
It’s not a lot more illogical that being “into” something as meaning you are open to doing it.
The terms are almost always used interchangeably:
https://ludwig.guru/s/there+is+no+understating+the
https://ludwig.guru/s/there+is+no+overstating+the
I agree it's confusing because they seem like they should be opposites, but with different interpretations you can make them mean essentially the same thing. There's probably a clearer way to word this, though with context I think most people are able to figure out the intended meaning.
This site demonstrates examples of your form. It is grammatical, if not a commonly formed syntax.
It is acting as as postposed adjective that has an elided to-phrase. "A couple of weeks prior [to October/the start of school/the death of John]"
That link shows that we do form "time prior" without the to-phrase enough that this is fine.
That said, if your teacher doesn't like it, I suggest just listening ;)
Obviously, IANAL and I would be calling the police if this happened to me. But: I could imagine, if criminal action is taken, a lawyer would aim for the "reasonable doubt" side of things. Did he speak aggressively to the home-owner? Did he try to hide the hammer (or wave it around like a mad-man ready to strike)? Did he decide to "knock" on a window (which would be a much more destructive and aggressive action)?
No. He hammered on the door, like the phrase "to hammer on a door".
Where are you from? I'm from California.
I hear things like "we went out last evening"
https://ludwig.guru/s/last+evening. (a couple of these are different form though)
Your teacher is correct.
Articles lack the ability to speak or talk. They are not sentient, nor do they have mouths.
The author of an article (or we say the article) may discuss a particular topic. A discussion means to talk or write about something.
https://ludwig.guru/s/this+article+discusses
It's okay to say an article addresses a topic or 'speaks to' the idea of something or other, but it does not speak.
I can guarantee that you are grasping at straws here to hold on to your bizzare claim.
I can pretty much guarantee that you're forgetting that English is an evolving language and definitions/usages aren't always set in stone.
"Pretty much guaranteed" is a valid statement, even though the actual post is kind of ridiculous, it still makes sense. It's very simple, it's the same as "almost guaranteed" or "a near certainty". You're allowed to use qualifiers with absolute terms. Something can be very close to being a certainty, which can be described as "pretty much guaranteed".
Yes, that kind of construction is fine. Here are some examples from various publications using "as a doctor myself":
https://ludwig.guru/s/as+a+doctor+myself
However, I would advise using this kind of construction sparingly - only when it's really necessary to emphasize the point and only when the context calls for it. That is, this kind of construction is usually situated in a larger conversation about doctors (or actors, or whatever the profession is) - it really only makes sense to use it when you've already been talking about doctors (or the medical field, or whatever) and want to say that you (or whoever) is also a doctor. You wouldn't use it if you're just making a statement out of the blue about your profession (you'd just say, "As a doctor, I ...").
Both are correct.
It just means to put something in the limelight, make everyone focus on something.
See some examples here: https://ludwig.guru/s/put+attention+on+something
The whole sentence is describing something that happened in the past. They already chose the factory at some point in the past, and when they chose it they believed that it was very important to make sure they had access to a skilled workforce.
"Weigh heavily on" is much more common, and I think it makes more sense as a metaphor. If something is very important to you, then it's a heavy weight on you. Some people use "with" instead, though.
>A bald claim? How dare you! I have a full head of hair. If you meant bold, idk
Don't try to correct me when you have no idea what you're talking about.
The rest of your claims are equally as idiotic as that one.
https://ludwig.guru/s/I+sometimes+imagine
This is a pretty decent website for all kinds of dumb phrases like this
From here I can't find any that imply someone is trying to "realistically fill in the blanks". All of them suggest pretending or imagining something that isn't the case.
Regardless the quibble about about the quote being "I think maybe it was self defense" or the quote being "I let myself pretend it was self defense" is not very relevant to the story's overall distinction as pointless rage bait. How she feels in her lonesome time about the details of something she never witnessed 20 years ago is almost completely irrelevant. If you want to write a story about this woman frame it qs someone working for better criminal justice not some very eccentric emotional progressive idealist doing revisionist criminology.
> What is meant by disciplinary background?
The noun discipline can be used in place of "subject" or "specialty" or "an academic discipline," and "disciplinary" is its adjective form, meaning relating/pertaining to discipline.
From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discipline
discipline noun (SUBJECT)
a particular area of study, especially a subject studied at a college or university
Hence, "disciplinary background" means "in which subject/specialty one was trained or one specializes."
Example credits: https://ludwig.guru/s/disciplinary+background
- I admire Moretti's honesty in saying this: most scholars, whatever their disciplinary background, do not publish negative results.
- The LSMC job database allows you to search offered positions by country, and even city, your qualification level, and your disciplinary background.
- The method for analysis of collected data was to first discriminate articles according to their disciplinary background.
- Unfortunately, the reader is also left with no sense of Bawer's methodology, disciplinary background or intellectual formation.
*
Definitely. I looked for “swim through a crowd” but all the top-level links were tips on swimming when the water is crowded. Still, “swim through a crowd” would be evocative and properly understood, assuming your readers understood it wasn’t in actual water.
I think https://lengusa.com is the best alternative to ludwig.guru. They are very similar and lengusa has use over time functionality while ludwig has word ordering functions.
>I used the quote you provided me that you claimed proved your point.
I provided Colborns quote to you.
https://ludwig.guru/s/tipped+to+the+side
Doesn't support you There's a difference between tipped to the side and "slightly tipped to the side". English ftw.
I used the quote you provided me that you claimed proved your point.
Note, again, how even in your new quote, they still don't say what you said.
https://ludwig.guru/s/tipped+to+the+side
Because nobody ever said they tipped it 90 degrees on its on side.
Isn't it crazy how you keep screeching about how it's plain English but then keep changing the words that were actually used?
>Q Uh, did you look under the bookcase?
>A I'm sure it was looked under when it was tilted to the side. Yes, sir.
https://ludwig.guru/s/tilted+to+the+side
There you go, fellow fence sitter.
"The film prides, and indeed sells, itself on its authenticity, but it also demands artistic liberty."
- The Guardian, https://ludwig.guru/s/artistic+liberty
Sorry that I kept on saying creative liberty when I meant artistic liberty which this movie is a perfect example of. It's supposed to be different, give viewers a sense of originality. Making its own rendition of the first and second games.
Someone needs to Google.
"Given charge" is absolutely an English idiom.
Take charge implies agency, as in it was their choice to assume command. When a commanding officer is killed in battle and his subordinate steps up and commands in his stead, that subordinate has 'taken charge'.
Given charge means that they were given command by an outside authority.
That second scenario is what happened.
Is that not a local expression? The rain is coming down in sheets.
https://ludwig.guru/s/the+rain+came+down+in+sheets
I'm half-English, and may use some odd phrases.
I know that in general it's the rule but I think this is one of those rare cases. Here are some examples :
"As President Bush has made clear, we are committed to establishing the conditions for security, prosperity and democracy."
"Related police investigations must first come to a conclusion, but we are committed to establishing the full facts and resolving all of the outstanding issues."
"We're committed to establishing Beats Music as a conduit for the artist-fan relationship, a platform where artists have a voice, and a provider of useful data and analytics on how fans interact with artists and their music," Rogers wrote in a blog post on the Beats Music website. ."
https://ludwig.guru/s/we+are+committed+to+establishing
Maybe some native English speaker can explain.
Do without/forsake?
How is that bizarre?
I know I typo'd an e in there (just noticed) but you wrote it correctly... so it's not a forego/forgo issue.
> Ecological resilience is a cornerstone theory in ecosystem management.
> The core principle of Warren's work is also a cornerstone of economic theory:
Found the following sentence, and others in similar vein:
"And Orwell's revolutionary mysticism turned out to be curiously precise: he was right not in spite of but because of his contradictions" -- attributed to The New Yorker
https://ludwig.guru/s/not+in+spite+of+but
"In spite of" has a root sense of out of spite, done deliberately to offend or annoy, but more generally, notwithstanding : "In spite of the apparent violation of physics, the plane took off". In the quoted example it means that what Orwell thought rang true not merely although it contained contradictions, but because. The final twist though -- not despite but because -- is optional:
"She succeeded not in spite of her handicaps, but because they were irrelevant".
I was simply citing the post. The post mentions that Kirito did it in “tens of seconds”. The commenter above me said “it was too fast”. Instead of telling in the anime, they simple showed Kirito did it fast.
Agreed with the other points.
Heres the term “tens of seconds” being used in various articles/newspapers.
My usage is acceptable in the English language, and appears quite often in scholarly articles. https://ludwig.guru/s/definitely+likely. You're definitely likely to have not read much literature in your life
The meaning of the locution "coherent with" should be familiar to anyone who has done a bit of reading. That being said, here are a few dozen examples of people using it in the same way : https://ludwig.guru/s/coherent+with
A few of them are in a physics context, but here are some applied to logical coherence of hypotheses:
>"This is coherent with Seeman's conceptualization"
>"Instead, they see it as coherent with their interests in Syria especially combating the ISIS threat"
As you can see, the locution "coherent with" implies compatibility and consistency between the two concepts, which is exactly the meaning I was intending.
Since you've now simply retorted to cheap insults, and that my previous interlocutor decided to delete their comments, I don't see any point in this discussion anymore. Goodbye.
It is valid English when it's used with words where it makes sense.
Like the example:
> "In spirit if not also in body."
From this quote aggregator here.
The key part is making sense.
control 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
each to do a different task lol. Excited to use AHK to give me an edge in law school next year, lol.
- Open up visual thesaurus
- copy sentence to ludwig.guru
- open youtube music
- my Hotmail,
- 5 my personal
​
OH---! Setting transparency of a window to read notes while still maintaining eye contact on zoom. Probably the most practical thing ever. haha.
I really recommend the razer naga, which has 1-12 on side of the mouse. meant for gaming but extremely practical
> "more of a person"
I looked up that phrase in a linguistic search engine and found 0 examples of it being used the way you used it. I suggest that the way you used it is fairly unique. That means people do not currently share your viewpoint and we should not assume the collective of humanity shares your viewpoint on that. So, you need another argument for why the mother should have more rights than the fetus/baby.
I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:
I did the honors for you.
^delete ^| ^information ^| ^<3
I would certainly use “whose” there, and I’m sure most other native speakers would too. However, “which purpose” (and possibly “which” plus some other similar nouns) meaning “whose purpose” is a fairly common phrase in formal writing. I can’t explain why it’s correct/grammatical - it would certainly seem not to be because “which” is not a possessive pronoun, but it seems to be widely accepted. It may be an archaic construction that has been retained in formal contexts today. However, I feel it’s particularly awkward in this example because of the “only” between “which” and “purpose.”
Here are some more examples:
https://ludwig.guru/s/which+purpose+is+to
Edit: Another thought - writers may use it because they think/feel “whose” should not be used for inanimate objects, or it’s too informal to do so (but that’s not true - it’s correct and not especially informal).
I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:
I did the honors for you.
^delete ^| ^information ^| ^<3
You're wrong, source: https://ludwig.guru/s/is+befitting+of
This is pretty sad. You have absolutely nothing to say to defend your perspective (which is to be expected considering how little thought you put into each of your actions), you're resorting to pointing out grammar mistakes, and you can't even do it right!
Want to know what makes this even more embarrassing though? English isn't even my first language, yet I know this better than you
I really hope you have at least one redeeming quality
Thank you. You may be right, but I could swear I heard the expression "open to enquiry" more.
This is the site that tried to explain it to me, but left me even more confused:
https://ludwig.guru/s/to+be+open+to+enquiry
Eh, there's nothing I can do about it now, but I was just curious. Thanks again!
any of you guys here uses Ludwig Guru ? Is it worth it to subscribe to their premium membership? I use it daily but unfortunately free users are limited to 15 searches only everyday. Or is there any free sentence search engine out there other than ludwig?
Yeah, you just don't have as good a grasp on the English language as you'd like to think. https://ludwig.guru/s/there+seems+to+be+disagreement Every single usage of the word "seem" on that page (that I have looked into, at least) is used to express certainty regarding the existence of a disagreement. Take this one, for instance: > According to one author (Sider, 2006), there seems to be disagreement concerning the following assertion: dinosaurs exist. Presentists are understood to deny this claim, while eternalists are supposed to affirm it.
The author uses the word "seem" in reference to a disagreement, and then immediately afterwards elaborates on it. There was absolutely no room for uncertainty -- the author was conveying that this understanding does in fact exist.
There is an expression in English which has the same meaning: "I would almost say..."
https://ludwig.guru/s/I+would+almost+say
It's a way of qualifying your statement.
In Norwegian, you can say "Jeg hadde nesten sagt...(statement)", or, more informally verbal, "(statement), holdt jeg på å si".
Bir takmışsın toprak sahiplerine. Şu iki mesajımda " 1 2 " attıklarıma bak. O bölgede %60 kaçak var. Bu kalan %40'tan devlet memuru, devlet kurumları, belediyeler, büyük işletmeler ve benzeri kişi ve kurumları çıkarttığında bölge halkının belki %80'inin kaçak kullandığı ortaya çıkıyor. Bunun üzerine birde adamların kişi başı elektrik tüketiminin İstanbula göre 2 kat olduğunuda eklersen kusura bakma ama senin ağa olayın pek mantıklı gelmiyor.
Her şeyi bırak, nüfusun çoğu namuslu bir şekilde elektriğini ödeyip ufak bir kesim kaçak kullansa yukarıda belirttiğim rakamlar yüzünden o kaçak kullananların alt yapısı böyle bir kullanımı kaldırmaz. Kaldırsa bile üç beş kişi böyle kullandığından onların elektriğini kesmek v.s çok zor olmaz ama az biraz Youtube'a bakarsan memurların elektrik kontrolüne gelince o bölgede yaşayanların piçleri tarafından taşlandığını, vurulmakla tehdit edildiğini...v.s. görebilirsin. O yüzden bir birimizi kandırmayalım.
I think you my answering the question as best as possible. Thank you.
In my particular situation, my manager is reverting my correction back to "responsible to". There are sources online that use this same awkward sentence as well, so I'm wondering if it's just me being too nitpicky.
https://ludwig.guru/s/are+responsible+to+ensure+that
So is the OP sentence grammatically incorrect? Or is it completely valid, despite maybe sounding a bit awkward?
Okay, but writers use sheath all the time. It is a word that is used. So yes, maybe your joke didn't land as well as you hoped, smartass.
I've never heard anyone call themselves "half-Canadian" before. Which half, the top or the bottom?
Doch funktioniert es. Hier bedeutet das Passiv sowas wie "wir begrüßen englischen Inhalt". Das Adjektiv kommt häufiger vor, aber das Passiv ist auch eine Möglichkeit.
Weitere Beispiele findest du hier
>
Here are some other uses of similar sentence structure just to point out that OP isn't using "lengths" wrong in the title: https://ludwig.guru/s/reach+lengths+of
"[something] can reach lengths of [value] [unit]" is a correct sentence.
- Wow you have $7000 dollars! LOL Congrats you have a net worth of less than a toyota
- Yes, because I'm shit in English when firstly, you can't differentiate between your and you're. Secondly, if you're so good in English you'd realize "Every single person" means each and every person, a common english phrase. https://ludwig.guru/s/every+single+person Try looking at their sentence examples!
- Yes, you are broke if you only have $7000 in your bank account, you literally make minimum wage because you're 16, and can't afford real clothing.
- I literally did not bring up anything regarding relationship, weird that you show your "girl" that you're broke
- I mean, I've hit you with the truth too, and you haven't made ANYTHING good either. Figures, I'm talking to a hypocrite high schooler writer who tries to force his arguments so hard
- Literally, the same thing can be said about you. You're totally pathetic when you make fun of someone and you're literally doing the same thing as them, clown 🤡
Your phrasing would almost certainly be understood by native speakers, but I’d be more inclined to use this word order:
> The stock price rose, much to the joy of the investors.
Or:
> The stock price rose, much to the investor’s joy.
"I'd argue that" is synonymous with "my position is that"
https://ludwig.guru/s/I'd+argue+that
Not trying to start an argument, just was stating what my friendship group and I would probably do ahha.
> Nobody says "hundreds" when they mean 1000 or more
Actually:
https://ludwig.guru/s/tens+of+hundreds
It's not uncommon to use hundreds when a number may, in rare cases, break into the thousands but where it should be understood to typically fall into a category of less than 1,000.
Frankly, the fact that I just used it that way, aside from any research you could have done on your own to understand the validity of that statement, proves your statement 'Nobody says "hundreds" when they mean 1,000 or more' incorrect.
How would you like to argue about that all day? Probably about as much as I'm enjoying your pedantic nitpicking bullshit about a statement I made that you understood perfectly well, and materially agree with.
Please stop. You're not winning anything. No one is better off for having this argument. There's no point to prove, and nothing of value is at stake.
You need to just accept that, ultimately, you don't like how I worded something, and even though you understood my intent, you felt the need to endlessly badger me about it.
This is sick. You need help. Please go away.
I'm not going to pay for a site I am never going to use, but here is a search for the term "me and him" which is improper compared to "him and I" that has more examples in the free version of that website than your example.
"We collectively" is redundant. It's like saying "Me, personally". Of course we do things collectively it's a plural pronoun
I did, "We collectively" has been a phrase in use since around 15th century England. It's from a branch of English generally referred to as "proper" english,
But thanks for playing. Next time, you should brush up on your english before you try to be snide, it really doesn't make you look intelligent enough to have a semantic argument. But I appreciate the attack.
>This place https://ludwig.guru/s/because+even+though seems to insist on the comma with those specific 3 words
That place is wrong.
The only time a comma would be correct there would be in the case of an (equally correct) appositive. Even then, though, many style guides would caution against it, and would instead recommend the use of en dashes. This is true because – even though I didn't include a comma after true – I can remove the appositive and have the sentence be structurally correct.
>As for that part about the appropriate use of semicolons, the sentence can be as ugly as it wants; it's still legal to separate the independent clauses with semicolons.
Ironically enough, this was also an incorrect use of a semicolon. That should have been a colon followed by a complete, capitalized sentence. In fact, it isn't "legal" to separate any two independent clauses with a semicolon.
Here's a correct sentence:
>He didn't come here; he went over there.
In this case, our independent clauses are both referring to the same subject.
Here's another correct sentence:
>He was bringing Ellen his dirty socks; bringing her a gift that he hoped would charm her.
In this case, the semicolon functions as a redirection back to "He was." If we reused that, we could create two complete sentences:
>He was bringing Ellen his dirty socks. He was bringing her a gift that he hoped would charm her.
Now, we could use a semicolon in place of that period (assuming that we decapitalized "he"), but then we'd be left with a superfluous phrase. On the other hand, we wouldn't use a semicolon like this:
>He was bringing Ellen a gift; he hoped it would charm her.
I don't mind since that's what this discussion is about. If this were just some random conversation and you were being a grammar freak for no reason, that would be a different story, but we're talking about it on purpose, so everything is friendly.
I decided to just Google "because even though", but I'm just confused now. This place https://ludwig.guru/s/because+even+though seems to insist on the comma with those specific 3 words, but other places are correctly saying that a subordinating clause shouldn't have a comma before it, but they aren't mentioning the case where 2 subordinating clauses are back-to-back. I don't know what specific case something like "because even though" should follow, so let's just assume your example sentence is right so that I'm not speaking out of my ass in case I'm wrong. In that case, the phrase "because even though the sentence has some of the hallmarks of including comma splice, it actually doesn't" is just a dependent clause followed by an independent one, so that's why a comma is fine there.
As for that part about the appropriate use of semicolons, the sentence can be as ugly as it wants; it's still legal to separate the independent clauses with semicolons. You're right that when you should use them depends on context, but I thought we were just talking about strict grammatical rules.
With your last paragraph, I understand your point now; I was not looking at it as an exclamation. I can't say I know about exclamations or if "Damn you" even counts as one, so I'll just wait until you or someone else steps in and clears it up so that I can learn something. Thanks.
There’s a web page called Ludwig guru It is also an app. Well, here you can learn the words in context. For instance, the word mettle this web page define it like, courage, spirit, nerve and then gives you a few sentences using this word. There is a premium service, but I just use the web service on my browser, I don't need more.
no you were not clear, and I was clearly talking about your assertion that other sports (and competition) in general don't police what is called "toxic behaviour" in the gaming world. They do. Google your own examples, btw. It's SUCH a routine thing.
Here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsportsmanlike_conduct
For a taster, here are many MANY examples of the good ald "conduct detrimental to the team": https://ludwig.guru/s/conduct+detrimental+to
such as: "Threatening Martin with violence, and peppering his language with racial slurs, Incognito has found himself suspended for conduct detrimental to the team and can expect the NFL to weigh in on proceedings too."
Do you mean conducive to the public good? That's usually an rational trotted out when deportation is being considered/implemented. Who's they? The amorphous nanny state, your perceived kindly benefactor?
I'm detecting language is not your strong suite maybe this would help? Think of it as reddit homework:
https://ludwig.guru/s/conducive+to+the+public+good
By which authority do you make this future prediction?
Are you a decision maker at INZ?
You are aware she is still yet to come to NZ? And most likely will? What then prey tell my good ham, I mean man? Bust out the placards? Chant? Set cars on fire? Punch attendees in the face coz they're admitted fascists simply by attending?
Here is a summary of a two scientific journals that discuss, "the validity of the assumption" of life being exponential. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1266533?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Here is a list of examples where the phrase is used in several scientific settings. https://ludwig.guru/s/the+validity+of+this+assumption
This is a number of scholarly articles all discussing how valid assumptions were, not how correct they were.
Each of them is completely interchangeable with the way I have used it.
You wish to discuss how valid (the validity of) Jhins assumption was.
I am speaking about who was responsible for making it. The fact it was an incorrect assumption is not up for debate. It is a known quantity.
You also compared something I said (which makes sense) to something only you have ever said which doesn't make sense. It is at the very least difficult to understand English.
To break it down
The validity (soundness, reasonableness, rationality, logic, justifiability, defensibility, sustainability, plausibility, viability, bona fides, effectiveness, cogency, power, credibility, believability, force, strength, weight, foundation, substance, substantiality, authority, reliability) of the assumption, is a perfectly coherent statement. The only thing is lacks is context. The validity of Jhins assumption. Given that you are absolute drowning in context, I thouught you could deal with a single pronoun. I have now replaced it.
I'm B level.
Here is my 2 cents.
>Please give me tips about learning new words
- Try to learn new words when you (really) need them. I believe choosing random words for learning is not a good idea.
- Use a flashcard program. My recommendation is Anki. Create your own cards.
- If you are not sure which words to add your vocabulary find TOEIC words and learn them in their context.
Your best tools are:
Google search "....your new word with a very basic sentence..........." (this will give you the context)
or a much easier way is using a Corpus . Just put your new word here and you will see it in context.
Example: benign
I don't know if you're not a native speaker, or it's a construction that's just not used where you are, but it's very common. An example might be something like:
Nurse: "Checking the medication name, dosage, and date is something you have to do every time you give it. It's a very necessary part of procedure if you're keen on not killing the patient."
Edit: More examples.
> and all those default single upvotes.
If I cared about upvotes I wouldn't be on reddit saying anything counter to the status quo of anti-trumpism. Given how you talk about up and down voting it seems that's all you care about here.
> Trump Supporters constant defense of him
I support whatever happens to be right, in this case, Ivanka's position in that chair is fitting and legal.
You got me on the quite to the contrary vs to the contrary vs quite the contrary. Definitely didn't use the most accepted version of that one. The New York Times used it here though so I'll stand in their company. Another phrase I didn't coin is "Smug Liberal Problem."
Not that you care, but here's a helpful article on the legality of nepotism and the white house. Will have to warn you it lacks any semblance of smugness though. Bill was one of the last to challenge it.
>The anti-nepotism law apparently has an exception if you want to work in the West Wing, because the president is able to appoint his own staff," Conway said. "The president does have discretion to choose a staff of his liking."
> But when President Bill Clinton appointed his wife, first lady Hillary Clinton, to head his health care task force, the move was challenged in court.
So every mention of Ivanka and nepotism is a waste of everyone's time. He followed the law. There's nothing to discuss except changing that law.
While I can't offer too much advice on your speaking besides "practice" (which isn't even that great advice), there's a cool tool called Ludwig that was made for non-english speakers. It's a "linguistic search engine" and it'll show you commonly used phrases and words in English.
Maybe from seeing the correct usage from different sources will help you understand sentence structure better?