Give It To Me
Give It To Me >>> https://blltly.com/2tkOzn
Lancashire is a rich area in which to study accent, dialect and grammar as Willem [Hollman, an expert in linguistics and a lecturer at Lancaster University,] explains: \"If I were say, playing with my pen in a very annoying way, and you were to take the pen away from me, I might tell you, \"Hey, that's my pen, give it me!\" but there's also speakers who wouldn't say \"Give it to me!\" but who would say \"Give me it!\" and then there's also speakers who would say \"Give it me!\" This last order \"Give it me!\" is not very common in Britain in general, but what we find in Lancashire is it's actually the preferred pattern.\"
[...] there is some indication as to what might have been happening to the serialisation of indirect and direct objects in the course of the Modern Scots period in Cheshire et al. (1993: 74). They point out that, in English, \"give me it is a more recent construction than give it me, which in turn is a more recent construction than give it to me, where the prepositional group to me reflects the function of the Old English dative case\". They report that Hughes and Trudgill (1987) give the order give me it as that most usually cited in descriptions of present-day standard English, but they also state that the reverse order is common among educated speakers in the north of England and is acceptable to many southern English speakers as well. This would suggest that [...] the order [...] give me it is gradually taking over from give it me and the even older give it to me. No dates are given here for the introduction of the newer word order in England, but it would appear that Beattie and his fellows objected to give me it because it was an innovation rather than, or as well as, because it was a Scotticism.
I don't know if this thread is still live but I have encountered \"give it me\" in literature up until about the second world war in southern English, even though I would say it is almost exclusively a northern construction today. I think perhaps it is an archaic construction, common in early modern Shakespeare, which carried through to what Mitford identifies as \"U\" (as opposed to \"non-U\") English, similar to expressions such as \"wait at table\" which omits the \"the\" before table. \"Give it me\" occurs in E. F. Benson, for example, whose prose so carefully reconstructed the language of the upper middle class of the inter-war years. Similarly I am sure it appears in E. M. Delafield's works. \"Give it to me\" is certainly more natural and is more correct now that the old usage has fallen away, though I fancy in its day the other would have been favoured by linguistic pedants.
In July 1988, during at a lecture at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, oceanographer John Martin stood up and said in his best Dr. Strangelove accent, “Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”These inflammatory words centered around a theory known as the ironhypothesis. Martin professed that by sprinkling a relatively smallamount of iron into certain areas of the ocean, known as high-nutrient,low-chlorophyll zones (HNLCs), one could create large blooms of thoseunicellular aquatic plants commonly known as algae. If enough of theseHNLC zones were fertilized with iron, he believed the growth in algaecould take in so much carbon from the atmosphere that they could reversethe greenhouse effect and cool the Earth.Martin’s theory sparked a tremendous debate. Unlike most of theunusual, somewhat esoteric theories that float about the scientificcommunity at any given time, Martin’s idea had teeth. It could be testedand it had the potential to impact the world on a short time scale. Manyof Martin’s contemporaries reacted strongly by claiming his ironhypothesis was ill founded. They felt that his “Geritol” solution toclimate change was careless and hazardous for the environment. Corporations and even some countries, however, embraced the idea. Theysaw Martin’s results as a way to reduce the effects of their own carbondioxide and bring themselves within the emissions standards set up bythe proposed Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile, the press portrayed Martin as arenegade scientist that came out of nowhere with a mission to proveeveryone wrong, calling him “Johnny Ironseed” and “Iron Man.” Martin, a burly, bearded oceanographer with an iconoclastic streakand wry sense of humor, reveled in the controversy and didn’t back down.He stuck to his hypothesis to the end. Several months after his deathin 1993, the theory was proven to be correct by his colleagues at theMoss Landing Marine Laboratories. They spread an iron solution into anHNLC zone near the Galapagos Islands and algae bloomed.While the success of this contested experiment established Martin’slegacy, it also overshadowed his earlier work. And there was more toMartin than just this one theory. The iron hypothesis came to him onlyat the end of a rich life and a prestigious career in oceanography, andit was just one in a long series of discoveries Martin and hiscolleagues made. In fact, Martin was among the first scientists tosuccessfully test and catalog a wide range of trace metals in theEarth’s oceans. He also demonstrated that copper and zinc could affectmeasurements of phytoplankton (algae) growth. With regards to the globalclimate, Martin’s experiments into the amounts of carbon drawn into theseas by algae formed the basis for many of the current large-scaleefforts to understand the ocean’s role in the Earth’s carbon budget.Throughout his career, Martin was a scientist with strong instincts,convictions, and ideas that altered forever how scientists regard theEarth’s oceans.next: Personal life On the Shoulders of GiantsJohn MartinPersonal lifeAn ocean full of metalThe Iron HyphothesisFollowing the visionReferencesTop: A portrait of John Martin. (Drawing by Roger Kammerer)
Hidden Disabilities Sunflower worked in collaboration with RNIB and the Government's Cabinet Office to create 'Please give me space'. In addition to the free-to-download badges provided on the Government website here, Hidden Disabilities Sunflower is backing the initiative by:
Henry spoke to the second Virginia convention in March 1775, to discuss the events in Philadelphia and the need to form armed militias in Virginia in case British troops attempted to control the area. There was some opposition in Virginia to any form of organization against the crown, but the persuasive Henry, from accounts given by people at the meetings, ended the convention with an emotional plea.
Even short breaks can help us perform at our best. In one example, William S. Helton, PhD, a professor of human factors and applied cognition at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and colleagues showed that short breaks can improve attention. They gave university students a test that required them to monitor maps of railway lines on a screen, a task that involved sustained attention as they tracked the planned train routes. One group received no break during the 45-minute task. The other participants took a five-minute break halfway through the task and were randomly assigned to one of five activities: sitting quietly, listening to music, watching a music video, choosing between the music or the video, or spending the break however they wished without leaving the room. No matter which type of break they were given, all of the students in the break groups performed better on the attention task than those who kept slogging away without an intermission (Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017).
Running low on mental fuel can be particularly dangerous in some jobs, of course. Pilots and air traffic controllers, whose work requires intense sustained attention, are two examples. Cognitive depletion can also have a notable impact on academic performance. Hans Henrik Sievertsen, PhD, of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and the Danish Centre of Applied Social Science, and colleagues studied standardized test data from public schoolchildren in Denmark. They found that when tests were given right after a 20- to 30-minute break, scores improved to a degree equivalent to 19 extra days of school. The effects were largest for low-performing students (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 10, 2016).
Answer: You don't want to have anyone give you antibiotics for colds or flu, and you don't want to take them. The reasons are pretty clear cut. Antibiotics only work against bacteria, and viruses are what cause colds and flu. In addition, they cause almost all cases of sinusitis, and bronchitis or chest colds are also due to viruses. So antibiotics won't do any good. Some people have had the experience that the cold settles in their chest -- somebody gave them antibiotics and they finally got better. 59ce067264