Answer:
I chose tyranny, enmity, eloquence, benevolent, and disheartened.
Explanation:
The noun "tyranny" refers to the cruel or unjust use of power by a person. It comes from the noun <em>tyrannos</em>, which means master. <em>Tyrannos</em> originated the noun <em>tyrannia</em> in both Greek and Latin, and <em>tyranie</em> in Old French, which, on its turn, originated "tyranny" as we use it nowadays. The noun "enmity" refers to a feeling of rivalry or conflict. We can trace it back to Old French as <em>enemite</em>, to Vulgar Latin before that, <em>inimicitatem</em>, and to Latin <em>inimicitia</em> before that. The noun "eloquence" means "fluent or persuasive way to speak or write". It comes from the Latin word <em>eloquentia</em>. <em>Eloquentia</em> can be traced back to <em>eloqui</em>, which would be the combination of <em>ex</em>- (out) and -<em>loqui</em> (to speak).
The adjective "benevolent" refers to someone who intends to do what is good, someone who wishes well to others. It comes from the Old French word <em>benivolent</em>, which comes from Latin <em>benevolentem</em>. Finally, the adjective "disheartened" comes from the verb "dishearten", which means "discourage, deject, depress the spirits of". It was first recorded in the 1590s and results from the combination of dis- (the opposite of) and -hearten.
The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.
Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.
Hey guys we can do a lunch tomorrow if you’d like to come too so
Answer:
ajjjajjjjsjjsjsjwjwhhwiij!jejij#hhu#i#ahsi
Okay, so syntax is sometimes called grammar, but the word grammar is also used more broadly to refer to various aspects of language and its usage. In traditional grammar syntax, a sentence is analysed as having two parts, a subject and a predicate.
Syntax refers to word order, and the way in which it works with grammatical structures. As we are used to hearing things in certain orders, the effect of breaking with normal syntax is to draw attention to what is being said and the way it is.
Now Alternative Syntax: is for its control structure; namely, if, while, for, for each, and switch. In each case, the basic for of alternative syntax is to change the opening brace to a colon ( : ) and the closing brace to end if;, endwhile;, endfor; endforeach;, or endswitch; respectful y
I hope I could help, that's all I really know about it, so if you need some more help, you should probably ask your teacher. :) have a great day.