'Any more' in UK English means the same as the adverb 'anymore' in US English, in addition to its 'any more tea' usage.
Yet "anymore" and "any more" are not interchangeable ... https://www.grammarly.com/blog/anymore-vs-any-more/
Are there actual examples to the contrary?
No, they're not interchangeable within either American or British English because in American English the two words/phrases have different meanings while in British English they're not interchangeable because 'anymore' isn't used at all.
Grammerly is an American site.
- "It's …" = It is … [the correct contraction here]
- Its = belonging to it.
Though British children learn the important your/you're, its/it's and their/they're distinctions at school, surprisingly many native speakers/writers confuse these homophones. The most common written mistake is to switch its/it's, probably because ...'s looks like a Saxon genitive, the possessive ending of a noun (a noun's possessive ending ).
For more ⇒ my [FAQ] Do your, you're and you are all mean the same?
Well, that's weird, because it's not 'something not to worry about it', it's a completely different letter that makes a completely different sound...
Ż (Z with a dot) can be written in English as ZH. In Polish, "Ż" and "RZ" make exactly the same sound.
Ź (Z with an 'accent') is a palatalized Z. It's hard to compare the palatalized sounds to English, but there are many such sounds in Polish (Ć, Ń, Ś, Ź, DŹ).
One problem with Duolingo is that with this font they're quite hard to distinguish at first look.
I'm bad with phonetics, so I may have oversimplified things a bit. Ź is a voiced alveolo-palatal sibilant fricative. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_alveolo-palatal_fricative
Not sure what you mean... the uhrjuh thing looks as if you tried to say "rz" just like you were saying the alphabet... then that's "er-zet". But the sound it makes is identical to Ż. Quoting Wikipedia, Ż represents the voiced retroflex fricative [ʐ], somewhat similar to the pronunciation of ⟨g⟩ in "mirage".
Perhaps in a context-neutral sense, but, if I wanted to emphasise the negativity, I would find it quite natural to use "still" like this. Something like "Surely he wouldn't keep it for so long?" "No, he doesn't still have it, that would be ridiculous." sounds appropriate to me.
The word marznąć (zmarznąć is its perfective form) has an old slavic origin "mŕ̥znǫti", meaning to freeze or to crust and in Russian it became "заморозить" (zamorozit'), with a vowel "o" separating r and z. In Czech it became "zmrazit." It actually reminded me now that there is a derivative that puts the vowel "o" between r and z in Polish as well: zamrozić (= to make freeze solid) and zmrozić (= to put in a freezer for a moment), which look like the Russian and Czech verbs, respectively. So our pronunciation is dictated by the derivatives.
Ready for more confusion?
Zamarzać = to become frozen, zamarzanie = freezing are exceptions in the meaning of becoming ice. In the meaning related to starving/starvation to death, they are pronounced with rz = ż.
Rozmarzać = to thaw, rozmarzanie = thawing are exceptions in the meaning of thawing. In the meaning related to dreaming/daydreaming, they are pronounced normally, with the rz = ż.
Other exceptions: mier|znąć = to disgust and its derivatives, e.g., obmier|zły = disgusting.
Words composed with the prefixes (cyber-, hiper-, super-), since these are foreign-origin prefixes: cyberzwierzątko, hiperzespolony, hiperzwolennik, superzabawa, superzbiornikowiec.
There are also more foreign-origin words, in particular: erzac (erzatz) and mirza.
See the Wiktionary for more fun exceptions to other Polish digraphs.