Why do you want to use "concrete" instead of "specific"? Again, I have to refer to "selectivity" vs. "tangiblilty", to me "concrete" strongly implies some sort of physical or demonstrable presence,

Hmmm ... when you put it that way, I tend to agree, sort of. Though I still don't like "concrete" applied to intangible objects, as a rule. I would expect, for example, that your 'concrete idea' makes sense if I then proceed

It's not totally grammatical, it ought to be (but never is) You had me at "Get Lost!". "Get Lost!" is the common idiom used by a girl to tell a guy she is not interested, in him or anything he's offering, in an abrupt

I don't think so ... "concrete" and "specific" are not synonyms, here. Specific = a particular example out of a multiplicity of choices or options Concrete = a tangible, physical or observable example. Specific can be

hmmm ... the examples are valid, but I don't think I explained that very well ..

If the question is "which of the two standalone phrases is more grammatical" then the answer is: one second seems like one minute if it's used as the subject or main part of a sentence, as in "One second seems like one minute

Actually, thouogh, to do justice to your original question, I don't think I really 'get' the "ownerless" part of your translation. What language was the original in, and can we have a longer snippet of your translation?

"Ownerless" implies a thing that normally would have an owner but at present does not. As a term of usage, I think you would far more likely hear "that phone is unowned " rather than "that phone is ownerless "; using

"Fishes" is technically correct but archaic, "fish" is indeed the (much) more favored plural. Nowadays "fishes" very definitely implies more than 1 kind of fish in the object (boat, group, net, bunch, book, pan,

Was that movie shot mostly in england and/or Europe? I don't remember. If it was, that's your answer right there. But I grew up in Chicago where we had the Trolleys (sometimes) and the Streetcars (more often) when I was little. I'm