Questions about example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "Dog"

A: needs to be the complete phrase, 'the dog's bollocks', English slang meaning something is really good, awsome.

"Ahhh mate! Those new trainers you're wearing. They're the dog's bollocks"

Don't hear it very much, most slang is used by young people and nowadays they'd say something different.

A: = go (over and) get it
= grab it/pick it up and bring it back

A: Put down is a nice way of saying “have killed”.

A dog that gets put down is usually killed by the vet / has their life ended by the vet

Vet is short for veterinarian (an animal doctor)

A: The dog park is a place where you can take your dog to play with other dogs. To get done at the park is to leave or be done.

A:

deteriorate shockingly.
"the country is going to the dogs"

A: @rafaa_alroud
عفواً،
أظن أنه تعبير يدل على الفشل بمعنى

"This idea or excuse won't work" :)

A: That man is such a dog.

A: I have a (pet)dog. I love dogs. dogs are my favorite animals. the dog bit me. my dog ran away.

A: My dog is black. My dog 's name is Luke. My dog is very playful.

A: I strained my back picking up a table.

I strained my back while exercising.

My back is very fragile, so I strain it easily.

After I strained my back, I was bedridden for days.

I constantly strain my back.

A: To be fond of something is to have a reserved or measured liking of it, you are okay with it & kind of like it, it’s “growing on you”-type of liking.

To like is to like, no questions asked.

A: They are the same. I think the second one is worth a mention.

Here "the" means 'all of this type' and it is kind of academic but is also used frequently every day:

The elephant is endangered.
The whale is the largest mammal.
The car is a source of much pollution.

A: The first one is not correct.
It would be the dog jumped up on the sofa.
The second one is better.
The meanings are the same.

A: The first sentence implies that the speaker only has ONE dog [singular], while the second sentence implies that they have more than one dog [plural].

A: Be careful with the dog means to be gentle in order to not hurt the dog.

Be careful of the dog would usually mean to be aware or cautious so the dog doesn’t hurt you (for instance if it gets startled, it bites).

I have also seen people use Be careful of the dog with the same meaning as using with, but it seems a bit awkward to me.

A: 😃 CASUAL
"You know, since dogs don't usually run away when people come near them, it seems kinda shallow to just call them animals."

😎 PRO
"Considering the tendency of dogs to remain unflustered when approached by humans, it would be an oversimplification to classify them solely as animals."


➡️ Your original sentence is good and conveys the intended meaning effectively.

A: please see my question about what you meant in the second sentence. if I understood correctly, you could not say as long as 7 years old because it doesn't make sense. it would seem like you meant that it is unusually long for a person to go to school up until the age of 7 years old. I'm sure you didn't mean that.

also we would never say as long as X years old

we would say as long as X years

long in this context means how long the span of time is. how many years

when you're talking about how many years old, you're talking about how many years old or young someone or thing is. He is
X years old.

A: I was *going to try* a hot dog at a cafe, cuz *they have it for a* 100 yen discount *off of the* regular price only for this week. But the staff said that it is *not on the menu until* 11:00a.m.

(Or alternatively "it is on the menu starting at 11:00 am"... but the first suggestion I wrote fits better with your passage, because it implies that you have to wait.)

A: I was so engrossed in petting the (if you’re talking about a specific dog, say “the”) dog that I didn't realise (we spell it “realize” in the US, but this one is okay too.) my teacher was standing behind me.

Good job 👍

A: The first one :)

When the dog turned on the child, I had to intervene.

This technically still has the same problem in that you could read it the “wrong” way, but is standard usage. To avoid this you could of course use “attacked” instead.

A: Dogs don't shout. They bark.
Those dogs that are barking are mine.
Those barking dogs are mine.
Those are my dogs that are barking.

A: It works for the most part. I would use the following:
I have 6 dogs. Some are black and some are not. (OK)
I have 6 dogs. Some are black, some are white, and the others are a mix.

Another way to attack this, because you are talking about a small number of dogs, is just to list out how many are black/white/mixed.
I havef 6 dogs. 2 are black, 2 are white, and 2 are mixed (or a mix).

A: Both can be correct depending on the context.

A: I woke up to the dog barking at the door this morning. Afterwards, I tried to go back to sleep, but l couldn't sleep through the noise because it lasted for about half an hour. It was so disturbing and annoying.
Thankfully, it stopped at some point and I could get some more sleep.

A: It is not a mistake.

You have the right idea, that the first sentence sets the context for the second sentence. The context is that we are talking about the situation now. "Now we know..." The statement is about what the scientists did until "now". "Now" is the present time and is the context for the second sentence. So the scientists now have been trying to solve the mystery for many years.

Note that this question is only about the structure of language. We do not know that the scientists ever solved the problem. Maybe a talking dog came in a spaceship and told us the answer, but nobody told the scientists and they are still working. Probably not, but we don't know and it doesn't matter.

However the following is also correct:
"Then we knew why a dog's nose is cold. Scientists had been trying to solve this mystery for many years."
The context is that we are talking about the situation "then". "Then we knew..." The statement is about what the scientists did until "then". "Then" is in the past, and is the context for the next sentence. So the scientists then had been trying to solve the mystery for many years.

Here is an even more tricky example. Be sure you understand the examples above before reading this:
"Then they made the crucial discovery. Now we knew why a dog's nose is cold. Scientists had been trying to solve this mystery for many years."
The "now" of the second sentence means not now, but the time in the past at which they made the crucial discovery. The clue is the verb "knew", which shows that we are talking about the past.
The context is that we are talking about the situation "now". "Now we knew..." The statement is about what the scientists did until "now". "Now" is in the past, and is the context for the next sentence. So the scientists now had been trying to solve the mystery for many years.