Thank you. Does that mean: look related to death look of death look that death has death's look all mean the same thing?

I think it's "related to" thinking of it. Because I just read a similar sentence: She had the look of death.

What does of mean in this sentence? SHE HAD THE LOOK OF HOPELESS ANEMIA THAT DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM FULLER BLOODED SORTS. A row of Lombardy poplars stood in front of my great-aunt Gertrude's house, on the bank of the Sheepscot River. In

Does it mean "travel in the future", "travel in the past and the future", "accelerate time", or something else? Please cite a source or an example.

Ok, thank you. That was quite usefull and instructive.

Thank you. However, I don't agree that it is caustic or witty. It's not necessarily quick either.

He didn't do his homeworks. He did them in a hurry to be more precise. He didn't do his homeworks. He did them in a hurry rather. Are both sentences correct? And more importantly do they mean the same thing?

We could retort that their theory is simply wrong. This sentence is definitively something I would use in a formal speech; however, I don't think retort is used correctly as "their theory is simply wrong" is not an argument it is

Another thread: http://www.englishforums.com/English/RephraseSentenceDifficultQuestion/kbdwc/post.htm However, I think I left out an important part, immediately before the extract: One might say, "It's clear what "the same"

Ah, ok, thank you, you just rendered my second thread completely worthless.