- fascination with for of - WordReference Forums
Fascination about snakes or in snakes are both wrong I would say fascination of for snakes depending on context If he likes learning about snakes, then he has a fascination for snakes If he likes snakes in general, he has a fascination of snakes
- facinating to me fascinating for me | WordReference Forums
I'd rather say: It's fascinating for me Is : It's fascinating to me also acceptable?
- Nourrir une fascination pour. . . - WordReference Forums
'Entertain a fascination for' floise adrien New Member Helsinki Suisse, Français Jan 7, 2008 #4
- Captivate vs fascinate - WordReference Forums
And note that the noun fascination is very common, whereas captivation is very rare It’s also worth bearing in mind the roots of the words: captivate is associated with being taken captive, and fascination with being spellbound There are various other terms along the same lines, such as enchant, enthrall, bewitch, beguile
- equal parts - WordReference Forums
Jon Snow was staring at him, a look equal parts horror and fascination I read this sentence in A Game of Thrones Now I rewrite it into this version: Jon's look was equal parts horror and fascination I know its meaning But my question is what is the grammar phenomenon of "equal parts"
- Hold or Bear appeal (C2 issues) | WordReference Forums
It is common to say "holds appeal to them" This means "is appealing to them" or "appeals to them" "Bear" often means "carry"
- its own fascination - WordReference Forums
In Les Miserables trans by Wilbour,page 50, there are the following sentences: Human thought has no limit At its risk and peril, it analyses and dissects its own fascination We could almost say that, by a sort of splendid reaction, it fascinates nature; the mysterious world which surrounds us
- historicisable - WordReference Forums
Il considère notamment que l'oedipe n'est pas universel, mais qu'il est historicisable et plus récent que la fascination pour l'image et la fascination pour le récit GAUTHIER-DARLEY M Le présent est-il, tout simplement, un objet historique, à tout le moins « historicisable »?
|