Answer:
The story reveals the impetuous and impacient character of Hatch, who desperately wants to meet with Blunt. This is clearly shown in the conversation with Mamma with the thoughtful use of literary elements and techniques such as:
Explanation:
1. <em>Where´s Blunt? </em>is the introduction to what ultimately turns out to be the forceful drive of Hatch that leads us to the plot.
2. <em>Plumed exhaust rose from the rising cab </em>setting.
3. <em>Mamma spoke from the dark cavelike inside </em>figurative lenguage
4. The repetition of <em>She was </em><em>sposed</em><em> to pick me up </em>indicates the character and also shows the using of style.
5. <em>Mamma blinked nervously. Did she say that? </em>tells us more about
Mamma´s character.
6. <em>He spoke to the moving window </em>is a beautiful example of figurative lenguage and also builds up tension on to the growing conflict.
7. <em>How come we can´t take the train? </em>is a recognition of the deepening conflict and again the <em>style </em>(spoken english with grammar mistakes) is present.
8. The plot is revealed when Hatch dashes out of the cab to meet (in a surprising violent manner) Blunt who turns out to be basking in the street.
Answer:
<em>Interrogative</em>
Explanation:
interrogative statements are like questions and require responses
Answer:
Minimal Pairs.
Explanation:
Minimal pair is a linguistic term that is used for a pair of phrases, words or any linguistic words that are from a particular language. Their only difference lies in the phonological element of phoneme, toneme or chroneme.
The words "dog" and "hog" resemble each other in all but one sound, but they have completely different meanings. This is an example of minimal pairing. In the words "dog" and "hog", the only differing element is the "d" and the "h". The word or sounding of "og" is similar in both words.
Thus, the linguistic term used to describe the two words is minimal pairs.
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "The better-dressed individuals were generally more affluent and thus had a better chance of being spared relocation." The message that is Spiegelman trying to convey in the panel is that <span>The better-dressed individuals were generally more affluent and thus had a better chance of being spared relocation.</span>
Answer:
People control their everyday lives with each desicion they make and each action they decide to make. We control our lives with everything we say, think, and do
Explanation:
I believe this because whenever we do something it affects the way we live on. For example, if you decide to ruin a relationship with someone you're controlling your relationships so now you have to move on with that decision, (Hope this helps, sorry if its kinda confusing, if you need more clearance let me know)