Help clarify the meaning of this sentence?
An inadequate warning is not a product defect that will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis. Product defect is part of the requirements for strict liability. If it is saying "An inadequate warning is a product defect..." Than it's obviously false, but the word not is confusing... Help?
Clarify the meaning of Pascal's sentence, "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."
It refers to the eternal battle between heart and mind. The heart (emotion) sometimes has feelings, like intuition, that cannot logically be explained. Think of the classic lines in movies in which the main character often questions whether they should do what is right in their heart or what they know to be right.
What's the meaning of this sentence, "People usually get what they had to start with."
Here’s my take on this phrase. I have no problem with people get…we can also say people receive…with no change of meaning.It certainly seems like a cynical saying, a contradiction to the American Dream that holds that, with hard work, we will all get more money and more recognition, and more things as time goes by. This proverb-sounding phrase says that most people never really improve their lot in life and in the end they have what they began with.Where did this saying come from? I never heard it.
How should I use, "That is to say, to clarify to rephrase it" in a sentence?
Please don’t.Choose one of the three each time the opportunity arises.“That is to say,” introduces a rephrasing of what you just said, usually done in a way that adds a logical corollary that was not obvious at first.“To clarify,” does not necessarily introduce a rephrasing of what you just said— it adds clarifying details or context to it. (Just as you’d expect, right?)“To rephrase,” introduces a rephrasing of what you just said, but in a way that puts it in a different context and sheds new light on the original meaning, without adding extra details.These three things are not identical and should not be used interchangeably on a whim. Of course they serve similar functions, but if you swap them for one another willy-nilly, you’ll wind up with different connotations. Different denotations of meaning, in fact.Words mean specific things, and grammar creates specific meaning too. Please just say what you really mean to say, and don’t pretend that clauses can be swapped around like Lego without changing what you are saying, or muddying the meaning of it.
What does it mean when you put an asterisk at the end of a sentence?
Yup, an asterisk usually means that there is a footnote at the bottom of the page.A footnote can be a reference if the reader wants to find more information about a topic , or it can be information about where the statement came from.A footnote can provide further clarification about a subject for which there might not have been space in the text, or if it is off topic.A footnote can be found in both non fiction and fiction. For example, several footnotes are used in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with hilarious results**in fact, the editors are now looking for writers because the last lot were the first ones against the wall when the revolution came.
What does this mean? 10 points (short sentence)?
Want something new does not guarantee that it will be better than what you have now.
Considering the sentence "Solitude is about abandoning the self as the focus of understanding", what does “abandon sth as sth” mean?
Abandon-to relinquish, release, let go
Can you please clarify what the word Prevaricate means?
Does your dictionary mention that "prevaricate" is often confused with "procrastinate". Two of the answers here define prevaricate as to hold off, put off, avoid making a decision... which is, in fact, the definition of procrastinate (and has nothing to do with prevaricate, although one might well prevaricate while procrastinating). I was also surprised to see "quibble" as a synonym, but in checking the definition of "quibble" I find that it does have a third definition of which I was unaware: an evasion; an insubstantial argument that relies on ambiguity To prevaricate is to speak or act evasively or misleadingly. A successful con-man is a prevarication personified.
What condition might you have if the more you read a sentence the less it makes sense? You over analyze it to the point where the simple meaning of it eludes you?
I don't think you'd have any “condition” per se, apart from the human one. This phenomenon happens to everyone once in a while. If you don't understand the sentence the first two or three times then continual re-readings on their own don't do much to solve the problem. You can try leaving the text for a couple of hours and then going back to it. Your brain will be processing the information subconsciously in its own way, so let it do so.Another strategy is to look for a reader of the text if it's a famous one like Kant's Ethics or whatever. Even if the sentence in question isn't addressed, once you understand the context it might suddenly become meaningful.Then again, there are also sentences which sound like they ought to be meaninful but actually they’re not.E.g. The subfuscous fondlings of the palatial hegemony mean that rambunctiousness on the part of the elite would henceforward be adjudicated.This sentence literally means nothing. Even if you know the meanings of all the words you won't get a concrete concept out of it because it would be like sayingpudding towards cat—which is equally meaningless.