About im-, etymoline explains:
variant of in- before -b-, -m-, -p- in the sense of "not, opposite of"
Bear in mind that in- comes from Latin, and so it will follow Latin phonetic assimilation:
In- is a word-forming element meaning "not, opposite of, without" (also im-, il-, ir- by assimilation of -n- with following consonant, a ...
Well, the linked Vogue article ("Why Is Everyone Saying 'I Love That for You?'") seems to be a fairly comprehensive history of the phrase's origin, use, and slide into sarcastic shade.
Whether sincere or not, of course it's grammatical English in any dialect. Per the OED, even if you don't think it suits the sense of for as
VII. Of the cause or ...
No. There are a couple of mistakes here.
"Whom" refers to a person. In your sentence it can only refer to "God", not "things". For "things", you should use "that" or "which".
You have two different pronouns ("whom" and "them") for the "things". Your structure uses a ...
The song involves countable and uncountable noun phrases and a pun:
"Heart of oak" is an uncountable noun phrase in which "heart" = "heartwood" and describes the literal construction of the ship.
Heartwood: 2. The dense, inner part of the wood of a tree trunk, yielding the hardest timber, often darker in colour and more ...
Yes, it's a real word insomuch as most dictionaries include it. However, it's worth noting that inclusion in a dictionary isn't really the standard for what is a "real" English word. As a reformed prescriptivist, I definitely understand why most people believe that's the case, but really it is much more a matter of what @Toby Speight mentioned in ...
But can I say, e.g., "my research in social psychology has drawn my attention to the relevance of theoretical physics for behavioral sciences"?
Yes, you can. To draw [something to something/someone], in this context = to attract [something towards/in the direction of something/someone.]
26. figurative. To attract by moral force, persuasion, ...
I would suggest that ”don’t” refers to all the doctors, that is to say, none of them seem to be here.
”Doesn’t”, on the other hand, refers to a state of affairs, in other words it isn’t so (that any doctors are here).
It appears that the difference may keep you out of jail:
Then we need more waiver of technicalities. In some states the escape
from punishment of men convicted of crime has been notably based upon
the most absurd of technicalities. For example, one thief in Delaware
escaped his just desserts [sic] because he was indicted for stealing a
"pair" of ...