the laughter was worth itLeaf Fight delayed progress for a while, but it was worth the laughter.
visor
shaking
welling
squeal
were
Either works, really. Both ways are proper English syntax.
Again, either works just fine. But trembling, in full context, works better than shaking.
This edit switches around the emphasis of the sentence.
The lenses in her visor, though? Also the original use of lenses humanises the wearer, as, as with sunglasses and corrective glasses, they are usually considered part of the person and you can make eye contact through them. Visors tend to be more anonymous and have a separation from the person beneath.
Bone-trembling works here, as it implies a lesser or more subtle movement
She isn't having tears welling up, she is seeing through the well of tears in her eyes - when your eyes have tears in them, that is the well of tears. This is a fairly specific descriptor.
In the original squall, there is not just the sonic component, but also the storm of metal implying both violence and movement.
Was is correct. A pair of something is singular.
No it's not, you don't say "your pants was on the floor," you say "your pants were on the floor." A pair is plural
Like most things with English, it's not consistent. A pair of pants are, a pair of scissors is. Generally collective nouns (like "pair") get treated as singular Do collective nouns need a plural verb? | Ask The Editor | Learner's DictionaryNo it's not, you don't say "your pants was on the floor," you say "your pants were on the floor." A pair is plural
... No, scissors are as well. You don't say "the scissors is still in the package," you say "the scissors are still in the package."
The fuller quote of the original is "the pair of lots was now covered in stacks of lumber" which is still better than the change. Explicitly saying something is a pair changes it - my pants are on the floor, but my pair of pants is on the floor.... No, scissors are as well. You don't say "the scissors is still in the package," you say "the scissors are still in the package."
You're right, but I wasn't talking about "scissors", but about "a pair of scissors" The former is plural, the later singular. The question is not if "scissors" is a plural or singular noun, it's if the collective noun "pair" is a plural or singular noun, and the answer is - sometimes one and sometimes the other, in the case of "a pair of scissors" it's singular.You don't say "the scissors is still in the package," you say "the scissors are still in the package."
Actually "Pair of pants" is one of the cases where it remains plural, despite the use of the collective noun.Explicitly saying something is a pair changes it - my pants are on the floor, but my pair of pants is on the floor.
It was called Liquid Bread because the ingredients that went into making bread were also used to brew beer (wheat, yeast, water), and it was widely drunk, even women and children drank beer with a lower alcohol content as that was the best way (at the time) to sterilize river water so it could be safe to drink.Another slang for beer is 'liquid bread', and it was more literal in many instances. I heard Old Nordic people uses beer instead of water when they made their dough.
I could be wrong, though.
Yay! Updates! Woo!
Now if only Good doG could take care of the S9 and the Endbringers...then maybe everything will be just in the world.
This is correct for objects which are both a singular object and a pair, I.E. Glasses and varying eyethings (contacts are disjointed, and thus can be singular, and anything else is composed of two joined lenses {Monocle<->Glasses/Monogoggle<->Goggles/Monocular, aka Spyglass, aka Telescope<->Binoculars}) Pants and most varieties of underwear (the thong and g-string are exceptions due to not having legs to speak of, and pants are composed of two joined pant legs,) and scissors (composed of two joined scissor blades {KLK intensifies}). Lots, however, are multiple distinct objects which can be separated without changing their very nature, and thus are plural whenever speaking of more than one. "The pair of lots were now covered in stacks of lumber," not "The pair of lots was now covered in stacks of lumber."The fuller quote of the original is "the pair of lots was now covered in stacks of lumber" which is still better than the change. Explicitly saying something is a pair changes it - my pants are on the floor, but my pair of pants is on the floor.
Ah, you're right on this point as illustrated above, my bad.You're right, but I wasn't talking about "scissors", but about "a pair of scissors" The former is plural, the later singular. The question is not if "scissors" is a plural or singular noun, it's if the collective noun "pair" is a plural or singular noun, and the answer is - sometimes one and sometimes the other, in the case of "a pair of scissors" it's singular.
This is actually both right and wrong. A pair of pants is countable and singular, because you use "pair" to count, so you may have two pairs of pants, but you can't say you have two pants, because pants alone is uncountable. Fish is an exception because it doesn't have a plural form, yet it can still be counted, as Dr. Seuss wonderfully illustrated. Most liquids are uncountable, as you can't count a single water to have multiple waters. Lots are none of the above, as you can have one lot, three lots, many lots, or just a pair of lots.Actually "Pair of pants" is one of the cases where it remains plural, despite the use of the collective noun.
Japanese doesn't have plural forms, it's all done via either context or explicit numbers. So Youkai would be both the singular and the plural.On one hand, Ammy has been slaughtering Yokais( Is that the correct plural version of Yokai?) left and right.
All that makes me really, really glad to be a German speaker. That language at least makes sense most of the time. I mean, why is it called a pair of pants? Can't you call it one pant?
All that makes me really, really glad to be a German speaker. That language at least makes sense most of the time. I mean, why is it called a pair of pants? Can't you call it one pant?
Could be worse. At least English doesn't give a gender to things. French is a pain in the ass of a language.All that makes me really, really glad to be a German speaker. That language at least makes sense most of the time. I mean, why is it called a pair of pants? Can't you call it one pant?
Could be worse. At least English doesn't give a gender to things. French is a pain in the ass of a language.
German does too. And unlike French, we have three genders.Could be worse. At least English doesn't give a gender to things. French is a pain in the ass of a language.
Just like that. Gendered languages are just consequent in the application of that concept.Eh, English speakers do tend to personify things. Ships are referred to as female, as are cars by many people. In fact vehicles in general tend to be personified as a female.
Yeah, but everything has a gender in French. A Scream? masculine. A mustache? Feminine(Amusingly enough.). The floor? Masculine. And I could go on.Eh, English speakers do tend to personify things. Ships are referred to as female, as are cars by many people. In fact vehicles in general tend to be personified as a female.
Yeah, but everything has a gender in French. A Scream? masculine. A mustache? Feminine(Amusingly enough.). The floor? Masculine. And I could go on.
You know, each time I think of Okami, I can't help but wonder what would Ammy reaction to nasuverse Tamamo be? On one hand, Ammy has been slaughtering Yokai left and right. On the other hand, nasuverse Tamamo is... well... she is Ammy. So... Horrified? Insulted? Curious? Friendly? I can't figure it out.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Endbringers are the one thing Sunny can't goof her way through. Not only are they obscenely powerful and mercilessly cunning, but they are also wholly unnatural; no part of any god or spirit of this Earth went into their making.Ammy vs. Behemoth : Bemmy sticks his head up and an asteroid of ice piledrives him into the ground.
Ammy vs. Ziz : Ziz starts to deorbit, looks at the future, shoots back to orbit and stays. Possibly because when Ammy looks at her she sees a large chicken.
Ammy vs. Leviathan : anywhere he goes for his water shadow and tidal waves can't get within a mile - he hides in a deep trench and sulks.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Endbringers are the one thing Sunny can't goof her way through. Not only are they obscenely powerful and mercilessly cunning, but they are also wholly unnatural; no part of any god or spirit of this Earth went into their making.
I'd kind of like to see her show up to the pre-Leviathan gathering, Sun Wheel affixed, red markings flaring, and for the first time ever dead serious, because this is the beast that destroyed Kyushu and ruined her homeland, and she's not going to sit idly by this time. It may not quite fit with the tone of the story so far, but it would be a good way to really show that under all the Floof and Goof, she's still a fucking goddess.