Sentences with phrase «only use language»

I only use this language because YOU understand what I am saying.

Since hiring managers will often only use language like, «We decided to go in a different direction,» it can be nearly impossible to find out why you weren't chosen.

On Jiffr, members introduce themselves without words, only using the language of pictures.

Character Education Helps Students Change for the Better Character education has helped us move beyond compliance and adults only using language to students embracing character qualities and intrinsic motivation.

Not exact matches

Here is Gates's summary of this entertaining book: «The brain behind XKCD explains various subjects — from how smartphones work to what the U.S. Constitution says — using only the 1,000 most common words in the English language and blueprint - style diagrams.»

When hit with an indictment in South Korea at the end of December, CEO Travis Kalanick responded using the carefully calibrated language of a man who knows he's exploiting a loophole: «We firmly believe that our service, which connects drivers and riders via an application, is not only legal in Korea, but that it is being welcomed and supported by consumers.»

«When you write out an idea from start to finish in simple language that a child can understand (tip: use only the most common words), you force yourself to understand the concept at a deeper level and simplify relationships and connections between ideas.

Though the Terms are actually 17 pages and 5,000 words long, they use, in the report's words, «language and sentence structure only a postgraduate could be expected to understand.»

Yet you don't seem to realize that the only reason you have to use such extreme language is because there is no rational grounds available to settle such disagreements, because nobody can point to what the market would have done, since it is unobservable.

The New York - based Fusion Analytics financial advisor offers the six biggest investing lessons of 2012 in his Reformed Broker blog as only he can — using the kind of salty and brutally honest language that rarely escapes off of the trading floor — and adds that now that he's divested himself of his hard - earned wisdom, he can die happy.

This is, needless to say, far beyond the capabilities of most users: not only do they not understand that there needs to be a conversation before the conversation, they don't even know the language they need to use.

Christian Arno, in his article «Parlez - vous Pay Per Click (PPC),» estimates that only about 1/4 of all web users use English as their online language.

They hear only their own language and couldn't hear the Almighty if He used a loudspeaker.

But what we believe about others has nothing to do with the others, only with the language we use about them.

My only other criticism is of the language used.

(I apologize to those that dislike metaphors, but I almost can't communicate if I don't get to use them, and as insufficient as they at times are, they are very close to the language of what I believe, because you can't really explain or define someone into believing... you can only live out your beliefs in a way that you share with others, and when given the opportunity shine a light, or point a direction, or walk along with someone for a bit).

For the over-all result of the great reaction has been a sophistication of the true simplicity of the gospel, the use of a jargon which the common man (and the intelligent one, too, often enough) can not understand, and a tendency to assume that the biblical and creedal language as it stands need only be spoken, and enough then has been done to state and communicate the point of the Christian proclamation.

The revelation consists first and foremost in the person of Jesus Christ himself, but this can become material for theological use only as it is given in human language.

Today we still speak of the cross only in the explicit language of the Church and religion; perhaps some pious old Christians may still use the expression for the experience of their own life.

Accusing our culture of using Christianity's language without its substance, she does the same, speaking of judgment and forgiveness only in terms of societal judgment and forgiveness, which, indeed have passed away in this guilt - erasing culture.

The communicative enterprise would become a vast inductive project — a complex exercise in theory - building, leading tentatively and provisionally toward something which, in fact, the imputational groundwork of our language enables us to presuppose from the very outset.1 Only by using the resources of thought to free our communicative resources from the spatio - temporal processes of their employment can we manage to communicate with one another across the reaches of space and time.

Keillor has a keen ear for parody, and makes use of it in unlikely ways, as in the marvelous «Your Wedding and You» with its explanation of the «alternative wedding» (only Garry Trudeau's «Doonesbury» has caught this «60s and «70s language as accurately), and in his more recent homage to punk rock in «Don: The True Story of a Young Person.»

When we use such a vocabulary, we find ourselves thinking about the world in different ways — and sometimes, at least, we may find common ground with other Christians from whom we were divided when our only language was that of contemporary politics.

In recent elections it has become obvious that presidential candidates are welcome to use religious language only in certain communities.

In terms of the current use of language, this means that they remain metaphysical, refusing to think of «God» as only a symbol of the community's faith.

The project has two subjects, Koko and Michael, who have learned to use American Sign Language (Ameslan), to understand spoken English, and to read printed words.10 Koko's instruction, begun in 1973, is the longest ongoing language study of an ape, and the only one with continuous instruction by the same teacher.

While Madison's use of the Christian tradition employs a restricted, even chaste use of theological language» the name Jesus Christ is never mentioned, only «divine Author of our religion»» there can be no doubt that his worldview is Christian.

First of all, responsible liturgical revision can not consist only in the use of more contemporary language or in the avoidance of what are known as «sexist» phrases (which are so dominantly masculine that women often feel excluded from what is going on) or in a return to biblical idiom to replace other (perhaps medieval) terminology.

Rather, it is a model, which does not derive from images and reality.107 As part of language, metaphor is not only used in a textual context, but also in an oral context, providing a social context for both.

But of course the creedal statement, hallowed as it is by centuries of use during the celebration of the Eucharist, can be understood only when it is seen as a combination of supposedly historical data, theological affirmation put in a quasi-philosophical idiom, and a good deal of symbolic language (with the use of such phrases as «came down from heaven», «ascended into heaven», and the like).

In the generation before Scotus, Thomas Aquinas argued that, although we have to use the same language to talk about both creation and its Creator, the things we say can only be true analogously in the two cases.

For example, writing of Rosmini's book The Five Wounds of the Church, in which Rosmini describes the obstacles an exclusively Latin liturgy can pose for effective evangelisation, Fr Hill not only proposes his hero as an early proponent of the vernacular Mass, but goes on to add (in a rather sly footnote) that Rosmini would also have been opposed to «the deliberate use of archaic language» of which «the new vernacular translations of the Mass are an example».

«Heterosexuality» only dethrones Jesus as the norm if we think that Jesus» life and ministry somehow subvert the normative (creation) order of opposite - sex sexual desires, even if we do not use the language of «orientation» to describe those desires.

Using sophisticated language is not the only mark of an intellectual.

By working out a neoclassical theory of nonliteral religious discourse consistent with his neoclassical theism generally, he has not only overcome the notorious contradictions involved in classical theism's use of analogy and other modes of nonliteral language, he has also given good reasons for thinking that our distinctively modern reflection about God results from two movements of thought, not simply from one.

It needs only a slight acquaintance with the traditional Jewish eschatology to recognize that these writers are all using language which implies that the eschaton, the final and decisive act of God, has already entered human experience.

The Bible (especially the lyrical King James version) is full of useful phrases and metaphors — indeed, that may be its most valuable contribution to civilization — and the English language would be poorer by far if we were required to use them only with the meaning and in the context in which they were originally written.

In practical operation, both use language as if it were a literal description of reality, and only in more reflective moments is this symbolic and interpretive character recognized.

Another Italian company had tried to teach their Chinese employees Italian (not out of national chauvinism, but because Italian training manuals could then be used in China, perhaps also because Chinese workers whose only foreign language was Italian could not so easily be lured away to work for other foreign companies).

While the scientific use of language to designate is an important function of words and necessary to some disciplines, to permit words only this function would be sterilizing reductionism.

Suddenly a word came into my mind Cuumara it kept repeating itself to me, I mouthed the strange word, suddenly before I knew it I uttered it out loud, Very Loud, then I said another word like buunara, I carried on for 30 minutes speaking not only the words the Angels use, the heavenly language, but German, Russian, Chinese everything I did not want it to stop, I have never felt so good in my whole life and it has never repeated itself.

If at an early stage in his evolution it was useful for an individual to be able to adapt to a language - using community, i.e., to learn language as fast as possible, selection for this capacity might well have brought about a genetic assimilation of at least the bases for what had originally been only a learned adaptive response.

Anything positive that we may say about God is not to be understood univocally; we can use only the language of analogy, and it is within a bracket, as it were, which is governed by a negative sign that all theology is enclosed.

Using dehumanizing language not only affects our perceptions of the «enemy»; it also affects the «enemy's» perceptions of us.

If we already presuppose, then, that the theistic religious language employed by the Christian witness in authorizing faith in God's love as our authentic self - understanding can be metaphysically justified, we can say — as I, in fact, have already been saying — that ultimate reality includes not only the self and others but also the encompassing whole of reality that theists refer to when they use the name «God.»

if were only going to use the KJV why stop at greek, or latin why not only read the original texts which were written in Coptic the simple fact is not a single one of us, including our highest religious leaders, other then about 30 ancient language specialist in the world have ever read an original scripture.

Indeed the modern Cartesian ego has collided with its own language use only to awaken and not know who, or what, it is.

In our new aims of education for the 1980's and beyond, therefore, we shall have to dedicate ourselves to bringing back, among other things, the civilized use of language (both written and oral), a sensitivity to beauty, powers of analytical reasoning, the intellectual vision of ourselves as historical creatures, the ability to cognitively articulate ideas rather than let communication skills courses degenerate into merely «touchie - feelie» experiences of «affirming the other,» and finally, a sensitivity to the nuances, complexities, and ambiguities of meanings.7 In this way, and only in this way, our educational system will equip its students for the future with an intellectual vision comprised of both knowledge and foresightful adaptability to environmental changes.

Not one written in it's own language using only concepts and events which could have been seen as possible from the point of view of other fotune tellers in it's culture, and of it's own day.

His only commentary lies in his incomparably deft and skillful use of language.