Using “wallow” verb with objectAnswering a question with “Me” instead of “I” + <auxiliary verb>Transitive verbs VS intransitive verbsIn “Approval was given, and Ju's art displayed.” how can the transitive verb 'display' be used without an object?Confusion about “transitive and intransitive verbs”Usage of uppercase word instead of lower after dialogueTransitive or intransitive, that is questionA verb 'biodegrade' as transitive and intransitiveworry and worry aboutAre all transitive verbs intransitive too?How to differentiate between a transitive and intransitive verb?

How to simplify this time periods definition interface?

Simulating rnorm() using runif()

How to answer questions about my characters?

How to deal with a cynical class?

Is Mortgage interest accrued after a December payment tax deductible?

Counting certain elements in lists

Check this translation of Amores 1.3.26

Make a transparent 448*448 image

Why are the outputs of printf and std::cout different

Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?

Is having access to past exams cheating and, if yes, could it be proven just by a good grade?

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

Identifying the interval from A♭ to D♯

Sword in the Stone story where the sword was held in place by electromagnets

Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?

2D counterpart of std::array in C++17

MSTP and Rapid-PVST+

Be in awe of my brilliance!

Brexit - No Deal Rejection

Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?

How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?

Is it true that real estate prices mainly go up?

Informing my boss about remarks from a nasty colleague

Theorems like the Lovász Local Lemma?



Using “wallow” verb with object


Answering a question with “Me” instead of “I” + <auxiliary verb>Transitive verbs VS intransitive verbsIn “Approval was given, and Ju's art displayed.” how can the transitive verb 'display' be used without an object?Confusion about “transitive and intransitive verbs”Usage of uppercase word instead of lower after dialogueTransitive or intransitive, that is questionA verb 'biodegrade' as transitive and intransitiveworry and worry aboutAre all transitive verbs intransitive too?How to differentiate between a transitive and intransitive verb?













2















I see that wallow is an intransitive verb so it means that it should not be followed by an object.



But if I use wallow as:




Since that kid didn't get the ice-cream so she started wallowing on the road.




Is this sentence grammatically incorrect because now I am using it like a transitive verb?










share|improve this question
























  • You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • ...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

    – StoneyB
    2 hours ago











  • @StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago












  • @StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago















2















I see that wallow is an intransitive verb so it means that it should not be followed by an object.



But if I use wallow as:




Since that kid didn't get the ice-cream so she started wallowing on the road.




Is this sentence grammatically incorrect because now I am using it like a transitive verb?










share|improve this question
























  • You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • ...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

    – StoneyB
    2 hours ago











  • @StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago












  • @StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago













2












2








2


1






I see that wallow is an intransitive verb so it means that it should not be followed by an object.



But if I use wallow as:




Since that kid didn't get the ice-cream so she started wallowing on the road.




Is this sentence grammatically incorrect because now I am using it like a transitive verb?










share|improve this question
















I see that wallow is an intransitive verb so it means that it should not be followed by an object.



But if I use wallow as:




Since that kid didn't get the ice-cream so she started wallowing on the road.




Is this sentence grammatically incorrect because now I am using it like a transitive verb?







grammar transitivity






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Lucian Sava

9,125113175




9,125113175










asked 3 hours ago









pjjpjj

1303




1303












  • You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • ...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

    – StoneyB
    2 hours ago











  • @StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago












  • @StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago

















  • You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • ...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

    – StoneyB
    2 hours ago











  • @StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago












  • @StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago
















You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago






You usually wallow around in something soft (water, mud), meaning flail your arms and legs, often trying (but failing) to move / make progress. I can't say your usage is "wrong", but it's a little unlikely (especially without around). I suspect thrashing about might be better for your context, especially given that wallowing around is something we say about pigs in their muddy / pig-shitty sties - with the strong implication that pigs really like doing this (mud-wallowing).

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago














...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago






...but your example is no more "transitive" that He was crying [in the road, in his bedroom, wherever]. Of course, to cry can be transitive in Cry me a river or maybe even I cried buckets, but I can't easily see how to do that with to wallow.

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago





1




1





@pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

– StoneyB
2 hours ago





@pjj Wallow does not take an object there. The road is the object of the preposition on, not of the verb.

– StoneyB
2 hours ago













@StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

– pjj
2 hours ago






@StoneyB Thank you. Your comment is really really helpful. 3 questions/point - (1.) so does it make my sentence grammatically correct (2.) lets say it it is incorrect, but suppose I had "accidentally" used in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would it be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice? (3.) Could you please recommend some online resources to me where I can learn these concepts, how do I understand that "the road" was object of preposition "on", to me it looked like "on the road" was object.. please recommend...

– pjj
2 hours ago














@StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

– pjj
2 hours ago





@StoneyB I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar...

– pjj
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














To physically wallow in something is to partly sink the body into something: water, mud, sand, dirt, etc. Figuratively one can wallow in an emotion such as self-pity, or in luxury, comfort, etc. There is a strong implication, for humans, of laziness (good or bad). Wallowing on a road does not make sense, because we do not use 'on' after 'wallow'.



Wallow






share|improve this answer

























  • Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago











  • And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago











  • Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago











  • @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

    – Michael Harvey
    2 hours ago


















3














You are not making it transitive. There is simply a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial of location. There is no object for wallow, you're just saying where they are wallowing.



However, one does not wallow on anything. You wallow in things, either literally (mud, water, or even champagne) or metaphorically (emotions like self-doubt, guilt, or angst, for instance, or champagne - that one is more usually metaphorical than literal). It actually comes from how some animals live, keeping themselves partly submerged for much of the time, like pigs or hippos.



You could wallow on something as long as you were also wallowing in something, where the on might give an idea of broader location - so if we ever have pigs on the moon, we might say "the pigs wallowed in mud on the moon".




In case you are wandering about the "wallowing in champagne" thing, that could happen literally - if someone had enough money and wanted to do it, they could fill a large, shallow container with champagne and frolic in it. However, it is used metaphorically just to indicate flagrant and wasteful luxury. Not to suggest that people have a paddling pool full of champagne.






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "481"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200565%2fusing-wallow-verb-with-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4














    To physically wallow in something is to partly sink the body into something: water, mud, sand, dirt, etc. Figuratively one can wallow in an emotion such as self-pity, or in luxury, comfort, etc. There is a strong implication, for humans, of laziness (good or bad). Wallowing on a road does not make sense, because we do not use 'on' after 'wallow'.



    Wallow






    share|improve this answer

























    • Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

      – pjj
      2 hours ago











    • @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

      – Michael Harvey
      2 hours ago















    4














    To physically wallow in something is to partly sink the body into something: water, mud, sand, dirt, etc. Figuratively one can wallow in an emotion such as self-pity, or in luxury, comfort, etc. There is a strong implication, for humans, of laziness (good or bad). Wallowing on a road does not make sense, because we do not use 'on' after 'wallow'.



    Wallow






    share|improve this answer

























    • Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

      – pjj
      2 hours ago











    • @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

      – Michael Harvey
      2 hours ago













    4












    4








    4







    To physically wallow in something is to partly sink the body into something: water, mud, sand, dirt, etc. Figuratively one can wallow in an emotion such as self-pity, or in luxury, comfort, etc. There is a strong implication, for humans, of laziness (good or bad). Wallowing on a road does not make sense, because we do not use 'on' after 'wallow'.



    Wallow






    share|improve this answer















    To physically wallow in something is to partly sink the body into something: water, mud, sand, dirt, etc. Figuratively one can wallow in an emotion such as self-pity, or in luxury, comfort, etc. There is a strong implication, for humans, of laziness (good or bad). Wallowing on a road does not make sense, because we do not use 'on' after 'wallow'.



    Wallow







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 3 hours ago









    Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

    16.6k11836




    16.6k11836












    • Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

      – pjj
      2 hours ago











    • @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

      – Michael Harvey
      2 hours ago

















    • Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

      – pjj
      3 hours ago











    • Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

      – pjj
      2 hours ago











    • @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

      – Michael Harvey
      2 hours ago
















    Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago





    Ok. Suppose I use in an English essay writing exam (lets say ILETS or toefl) then would be considered as grammatically incorrect or it is too trivial to be notice?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago













    And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago





    And one more question - the way I have used wallow in the example in my question, that particular usage is showing after "wallow" an object is there, right?

    – pjj
    3 hours ago













    Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago





    Yes, I want to understand how to check whether verb is used transitively or intransitively.. basically understanding whether verb has object or not... I am not a native English user so please don't mind my ignorance towards English grammar... If you could recommend some good online learning resources then it would be helpful...

    – pjj
    2 hours ago













    @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

    – Michael Harvey
    2 hours ago





    @pjj - wallow 'on' is never right. When you wallow you sink into something.

    – Michael Harvey
    2 hours ago













    3














    You are not making it transitive. There is simply a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial of location. There is no object for wallow, you're just saying where they are wallowing.



    However, one does not wallow on anything. You wallow in things, either literally (mud, water, or even champagne) or metaphorically (emotions like self-doubt, guilt, or angst, for instance, or champagne - that one is more usually metaphorical than literal). It actually comes from how some animals live, keeping themselves partly submerged for much of the time, like pigs or hippos.



    You could wallow on something as long as you were also wallowing in something, where the on might give an idea of broader location - so if we ever have pigs on the moon, we might say "the pigs wallowed in mud on the moon".




    In case you are wandering about the "wallowing in champagne" thing, that could happen literally - if someone had enough money and wanted to do it, they could fill a large, shallow container with champagne and frolic in it. However, it is used metaphorically just to indicate flagrant and wasteful luxury. Not to suggest that people have a paddling pool full of champagne.






    share|improve this answer



























      3














      You are not making it transitive. There is simply a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial of location. There is no object for wallow, you're just saying where they are wallowing.



      However, one does not wallow on anything. You wallow in things, either literally (mud, water, or even champagne) or metaphorically (emotions like self-doubt, guilt, or angst, for instance, or champagne - that one is more usually metaphorical than literal). It actually comes from how some animals live, keeping themselves partly submerged for much of the time, like pigs or hippos.



      You could wallow on something as long as you were also wallowing in something, where the on might give an idea of broader location - so if we ever have pigs on the moon, we might say "the pigs wallowed in mud on the moon".




      In case you are wandering about the "wallowing in champagne" thing, that could happen literally - if someone had enough money and wanted to do it, they could fill a large, shallow container with champagne and frolic in it. However, it is used metaphorically just to indicate flagrant and wasteful luxury. Not to suggest that people have a paddling pool full of champagne.






      share|improve this answer

























        3












        3








        3







        You are not making it transitive. There is simply a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial of location. There is no object for wallow, you're just saying where they are wallowing.



        However, one does not wallow on anything. You wallow in things, either literally (mud, water, or even champagne) or metaphorically (emotions like self-doubt, guilt, or angst, for instance, or champagne - that one is more usually metaphorical than literal). It actually comes from how some animals live, keeping themselves partly submerged for much of the time, like pigs or hippos.



        You could wallow on something as long as you were also wallowing in something, where the on might give an idea of broader location - so if we ever have pigs on the moon, we might say "the pigs wallowed in mud on the moon".




        In case you are wandering about the "wallowing in champagne" thing, that could happen literally - if someone had enough money and wanted to do it, they could fill a large, shallow container with champagne and frolic in it. However, it is used metaphorically just to indicate flagrant and wasteful luxury. Not to suggest that people have a paddling pool full of champagne.






        share|improve this answer













        You are not making it transitive. There is simply a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial of location. There is no object for wallow, you're just saying where they are wallowing.



        However, one does not wallow on anything. You wallow in things, either literally (mud, water, or even champagne) or metaphorically (emotions like self-doubt, guilt, or angst, for instance, or champagne - that one is more usually metaphorical than literal). It actually comes from how some animals live, keeping themselves partly submerged for much of the time, like pigs or hippos.



        You could wallow on something as long as you were also wallowing in something, where the on might give an idea of broader location - so if we ever have pigs on the moon, we might say "the pigs wallowed in mud on the moon".




        In case you are wandering about the "wallowing in champagne" thing, that could happen literally - if someone had enough money and wanted to do it, they could fill a large, shallow container with champagne and frolic in it. However, it is used metaphorically just to indicate flagrant and wasteful luxury. Not to suggest that people have a paddling pool full of champagne.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        SamBCSamBC

        11.3k1541




        11.3k1541



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200565%2fusing-wallow-verb-with-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Can not update quote_id field of “quote_item” table magento 2Magento 2.1 - We can't remove the item. (Shopping Cart doesnt allow us to remove items before becomes empty)Add value for custom quote item attribute using REST apiREST API endpoint v1/carts/cartId/items always returns error messageCorrect way to save entries to databaseHow to remove all associated quote objects of a customer completelyMagento 2 - Save value from custom input field to quote_itemGet quote_item data using quote id and product id filter in Magento 2How to set additional data to quote_item table from controller in Magento 2?What is the purpose of additional_data column in quote_item table in magento2Set Custom Price to Quote item magento2 from controller

            How to solve knockout JS error in Magento 2 Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?(Magento2) knockout.js:3012 Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process bindingUnable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Cannot read property `scopeLabel` of undefined on Product Detail PageCan't get Customer Data on frontend in Magento 2Magento2 Order Summary - unable to process bindingKO templates are not loading in Magento 2.1 applicationgetting knockout js error magento 2Product grid not load -— Unable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Product form not loaded in magento2Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process binding “if: function()return (isShowLegend()) ” magento 2

            Nissan Patrol Зміст Перше покоління — 4W60 (1951-1960) | Друге покоління — 60 series (1960-1980) | Третє покоління (1980–2002) | Четверте покоління — Y60 (1987–1998) | П'яте покоління — Y61 (1997–2013) | Шосте покоління — Y62 (2010- ) | Посилання | Зноски | Навігаційне менюОфіційний український сайтТест-драйв Nissan Patrol 2010 7-го поколінняNissan PatrolКак мы тестировали Nissan Patrol 2016рвиправивши або дописавши її