Advanced Search

AGR stands for exhaust gas recirculation. This is a caption below a drawing. Does the source sound a bit off the mark in terms of grammar? Or is a word missing after "elektrischen"? The whole sentence reads:

Analyses, diagrams and curves. Does this actually mean "as low as 0.1" or "lower than 0.1" supposing als is omitted?

I have seen such titles often retained in translation (is the retention supported by an appropriate rule?). Or is there any standard translation for these titles? For instance, Dr. Ing. alone is Doctor of Engineering, as is known. What about the whole ...

A lengthy sentence. Trying to restore the links between subject and predicates. In my understanding: gelöst refers to Aufgaben gekennzeichnet probably refers to Düsenauslässen angeordnet sind refers to Düsenauslässen bilden - ? Logicalla, there ...

Does it mean "immersed" here? Literally, the solvent must be absorbed in methanol.

Am I missing something or is the source poorly written? Doesn't seem to be a case of a (gramatically correct) ellipsis. ***Where's the subject of the subordinate clause?*** ...sollte WAS extrahiert werden?

What sounds odd to me is that the first part of the sentence says no shareholder purchases the shares (of an insolvent fellow-shareholder), but the second part says that in such a case, the shareholders do have to purchase the shares. Am I missing ...

Is the meaning of this sentence distorted or have I been working too much today? ... per Saldo aller Ansprueche auseinandergesetzt...

Perhaps differentiating between the words ***between*** and ***among*** or something else is meant?

What does this word mean in the given context?

While an answer is posted by a native speaker, I'd suggest you look at this: sorry about something I am sorry about the job. It's a shame you didn't get it. sorry for doing something He said he was sorry for keeping me waiting. (feel) sorry for ...

Более короткий вариант. Т.е. деятельность, основанная на уставе. Или же charter-defined activity.

Ինչու՞ ոչ բառացի:

Անգլերենում սրանք կոչվում են slender spindle (type) crowns: Նկարը` http://sad-institut.com.ua/images/celekcia_19.jpg

.

That's a purely-Armenian expression, Ared, which doesn't have a one-to-one match in English. Very broadly, it expresses a positive feeling towards Armenian songs. In this particular case, I'd perhaps translate it as "long live Armenian songs" or sth along ...

http://tinyurl.com/c577zg Ու. Ջանդոսովայի անվան սովխոզի յոթերորդ բրիգադը յուրաքանչյուր հեկտարից նախատեսված 60 ցենտների փոխարեն հավաքել է 145 ցենտներ մորի, իսկ փորձարարական տեղամասից` 250-ական ցենտներ: ***Այստեղ բույսերը աճեցվել են բազմացման մերիստեմային ...

Կամ` մերիստեմային մեթոդով ստեղժված հյուսվածքներ: Մերիստեմային մեթոդով բջիջների բազմացումը թույլ է տալիս ժառանգել բույսերի լավագույն գենետիկական հատկությունները, պահպանել նրանց բազմազան վիրուսներից:

.

Ahh, grrr..!!! I wish we had some furious emoticons here! Thanks for the correction, Martin.

Martin, in that case shouldn't Luftströme be in the dative (aus ... LuftströmeN)? Note that 5 refers to Düsenauslässen.

Still not very clear. Could you please decipher the phrase starting at vorzugsweise...? Einen Flächer bilden, oder Luftströme bilden?

Joel, if, as you say, sorry+for implies only compassion, what about "Sorry for being late" or "Sorry for being rude" and the like? I think these are standard and traditional English, with no compassion implied. I would personally choose these over their ...

What I mean, Alex, is that it does not sound English to me at all. In other words, it sounds too simple to be good/correct English.

If your question is addressed to me, Nanna, I would write: sorry for not providing any context.

It does not sound simple in English at all, either. I'd say that's poor English.

It also depends on which language layer you go for. If you are interested in the colloquial use, maybe "for" is indeed becoming more common. But if you need the traditional(ly correct) approach, I think it would make sense to adhere to the differentiation ...

What do you think of the distinction quoted in my answer, Joel? From the grammatical point of view, it is the standard, as far as I know (the same distinction is made in Raymond Murphy's Intermediate English and elsewhere).

That is to say, in the first two cases, it's a matter of structure (while the meaning is the same), in the last case, there is a difference in the meaning ('be' could also be used here).