Could you interpret this latin sentence.?
Latin verb form "pasuit" should be "posuit". Perhaps: Agricolae filia cenam in mensa ad fenestram posuit. The farmer's daughter placed the dinner on the table near the window. agricolae = the farmer's, of the farmer (genitive singular of agricola, farmer) filia = daughter (nominative singular of filia, daughter) cenam = dinner (accusative singular of cena, dinner) in = in, on (preposition with ablative case) mensa = table (ablative singular of mensa, table, following in) ad = near, towards (preposition with accusative case) fenestram = window (accusative singular of fenestra, window, following ad) posuit = placed, put, laid, set (third-person singular perfect active indicative of pono, I place etc)
I need help interpreting a sentence?
Please help me interpret this sentence! "I don't believe that I have or will face difficulties obtaining and retaining employment unrelated to my qualifications or the economy."
Use interpret in a sentence?
Can you please interpret what this man is saying, I do not speak his language.
How should I interpret the sentence "I don't deserve you"?
It is one of the finest sentence to confuse your loved ones. Male part of relationship uses it oftenly.As like coin have two faces.. in the same way this statement have also two.Positive one-May be that person have some guilt feeling inside his heart, may be he believes that you are more loyal towards him than he is towards you.Might be you did something very pleasant for him that he never expected. So if it is the case then make him understand that love is not the rank system where we would judge ourselves...whatever i m doing...it is because i love you...and you love me....stay together :-)Negative one-:If this sentence was in negative sense...then first try to understand what was the reason behind this...might be because of some misunderstandings....But if not....then no need to explain yourself... you know you are true..if he understand, it ll be fine. If he don't then really you deserve better... atleast not him.
Help me with interpreting this sentence and put it into easier to understand words please!?
The sentence means: The court wanted to protect the rights of someone accused of a crime instead of protecting someone who had a crime done to them. Because they wanted to protect the rights of the accused, they make the rights of the victim and the cop also involved in the case less important than the rights of the accused. [Note: Just in case you're not sure, "zeal" means ... when you're hungry, you eat with great zeal .. so maybe a definition would be "enthusiasm", or "rush to accomplish something".] This kind of thinking is real backwards. It's like, someone robs your house, but the court decides that the robber has more rights than you or the cop that showed up at your house. A better way to say it might be: Oftentimes, the court will decide to protect the rights of the accused first, instead of protecting the rights of the victim and the police officer first.
How do you interpret a sentence that can be read a dozen different ways?
you look to the source, if it's an option and, if not, you get your forensic hat on and get to work on any other scrap of evidence which might assist your cause (((ssf))). p.s. i blame one of my contacts for dragging me back here today (as i'm supposed to be abstaining from yahoo). i simply could not resist answering. have a beautiful day everyone :)
Per diem??? Can someone interpret this sentence for me. I don't get it?
per diem comes from the latin for "per day" A per diem is payable as a flat rate contribution to costs when employees travel (or in this case, for Palin's official work as Governor). Instead of paying the hotel bill, the food bill, and so on as separate amounts, some companies (or governments) pay a flat rate per day, and the employee chooses where to stay and eat and pockets the difference. These are either paid as expenses (so claimed by the employee each time) or are paid via payroll (and taxed accordingly). So "$17,000 in per diem payments" means that over the 300 nights she was given $17,000 in cash to pay for her travel on State business, or $56 per day. As she wasn't travelling because the story alleges she was actually at home, she would not ordinarily be entitled to a per diem, unless her contract or the Alaskan government practice allowed her to claim them.