3
As per Hot Lick's comment, you could re-write the sentence as
which, in part, hinged on the success...
In part is another way to phrase partially (i.e. not completely).
Thus, the phrase means that the success of the IPO hinged partially on the success of Uber Eats.
3
Very often in English, prepositions attached to verbs alter the meaning. Looking is one such verb.
I am looking — this has a number of meanings, from searching ("looking for it") to appearing ("looking thoughtful"). The "appearing" meaning requires an object; the "searching" meaning requires an object after for. The phrase "I am looking" can omit "for it" ...
2
It means, here, “except”. “Effected” means “made to happen” here. The “not . . . but” in combination mean “only.”
2
In normal (present tense) conversation, the difference between "I have been crying" (perfect tense) and "I am crying" (simple tense) is that the former is ambiguous as to whether or not you are still crying.
The novel being written entirely in past tense, this distinction holds. "How hard I had been crying" does not indicate whether or not you were still ...
2
For was her god not the god of ruin?
This sentence is a rhetorical question – while it appears to be a question, its purpose is to be a statement explaining Hareetha's actions. The fact that Hareetha is laughing at the destruction of Behemoth Mountain appears strange, but the speaker is using this rhetorical question to remind us that she worships a god of ...
2
For was her god not the god of ruin?
While the sentence is rhetorical, it also has an almost archaic structure to it.
It can be paraphrased as:
Wasn't this because her god was the god of ruin?
The use of for implies a reason for the fact that the mountain lay in ruins.
1
"has always been" means that the mission was always like this in the past.
"is always" is less emphatic about the past, and stresses the current and future mission.
If the mission were actually changing significantly, this could be made even clearer by saying "is now".
1
No.
A case in point is Japan.
This is an independent clause that can function as a complete sentence. It has a subject ("a case in point"), a verb ("is"), and a complement ("Japan"). This is an S-V-C sentence. As Jeff Blair explains ("SVC Sentence Pattern"), the complement describes the subject. This independent clause should be treated as such with ...
1
'In the present' is not used quite correctly in either B or D. It is a phrase used frequently when discussing tenses, but 'Today' or 'In the present day' might be better here.
So A and C are - slightly - better than B and D.
Unfortunately 'At present' is not quite right either. "At present we can see the fossils of them in the museum" sounds as if you are ...
1
You have the wrong usage for incredulous which is applied to people.
The Oxford Dictionaries has
incredulous
ADJECTIVE
(of a person or their manner) unwilling or unable to believe something.
Journalists were even more incredulous when the fishermen said it was a good deal and they were happy about it.
I think the word you want is
incredible
...
1
Is it a title or a question?
If it is the title of an article or book explaining the damage to China's economy, then the first one is correct, but it doesn't have a question mark:
How China's economy is being damaged.
If you are asking a question then it is 2:
How is China's economy being damaged?
1
It may be grammatical without the comma, but (without further rephrasing) the meaning of the sentence would be ambiguous and could lead to a nonsensical interpretation.
Without the comma, either of these are possibilities:
Jack stood at the door [and was] numb with pain.
Jack was numb with pain.
Jack stood at the door [that was] numb with pain.
The ...
1
As Xanne's answer says it means "except". This is a valid meaning of "but", however it isn't used much these days: ordinary English has changed quite a lot since 1791.
Gooling "but define" returns, among others, this entry from the Online Oxford Living Dictionary in which:
meaning 2 is
{with negative or in questions} Used to indicate the impossibility ...
1
Agreeing with @FumbleFingers that your approach is mistaken. Aside from what he says, there is also the problem that a nominalization is not a noun, but rather a noun phrase (NP). A NP is a constituent which can be the argument of a verb or object of a preposition, or perhaps a few other things. The head of a NP is often a noun, but not always -- it can ...
1
These are correct.
Match me only with people I kissed or people that I am following
Match me only with people I kissed or people whom I am following
1
"Half a cup" sounds like "Half of a cup"
So I imagine any word that ends in f and would normally require the word "of" for it to make sense, have "of" left out because it sounds like it's still there. (I can't think of any others examples so I'm still unsure).
"Quarter of a cup"
1
You could certainly say that, but I would suggest making the sentence clearer by adding what the people are a part of. Part is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
One of the often indefinite or unequal subdivisions into which something is or is regarded as divided and which together constitute the whole
What this means is that you need a whole in order to ...
1
Its use in this case is to say "It is also not in the comfy documentation." or "I could not find it in the comfy documentation either."
The typical use would be "It is not an HTML tag, nor could I find it in the "comfy" documentation." The words could and I just needed to be reversed.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
