is 'meanstwhile' a real word?
108959
Meanwhile is correct. Measnstwhile is not a word.
763608
I think the word you're looking for is sufficient, but your question is not sufficient enough for me to tell for sure.
921492
I don't understand your question.  There are certainly valid sentences using those phrases, e.g.\n\n"It is cold to the touch"\n\n"It is good to help people"\n\nI have a feeling you're asking something different, though.  Please clarify your question.
1015977
I belive its another word for $$$$.
400230
no it's not a meaningless word but you can make it that way like your statments
952872
The word itself generally means "nearby", "close", not distant from something else.  \n\nHowever, it may have special meanings in various disciplines, so one has to know how its being used in those contexts to be sure.
175428
It looks like a typo (a typing mistake) to me. Is that the entire sentence, or is there more? If there's more to the sentence, then the word might be "best-connected."
18164
not quite "to make obsolete" but may fit the bill when talking about being an antonym for "necessitate"...preclude? obviate?
528665
Indubitably!\n\nside note:  When I used the spell check, turned out I spelled it right! woo!!
1104182
1. stinginess\n\nWordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]\nstingy\n     adj 1: not generous;
788227
spontaneous\npassive\nagressive
986543
good outweigh bad\n\n:> peace\n.
587167
magnificent\nmajestic\nmiddling\nmild\nmellow\nmemorizing\nmere\nmonstrous\nmischievous\nmanly\nmotivated\nmeek\n...and so on.
161504
Here's a few.\n\ngullible  \nIdiot\nnimrod\nyoung child\nblond (JK) ;)\n\njust to name a few...\n\nGullible is the best word though\n\nIt is in the dictionary - just maybe not every single one of them...\n\nHere it is right from the online Dictionary\n\n\n \nMerriam-Webster Online \nEntry Word: gullible\nFunction: adjective\nText: readily taken advantage of...
540878
nope.Its not a word.U can use distinctive instead.
552088
&*&*&*\n\n"An unspeakable word is inexpressibly bad; it has no synonym, no substitute. "\n\nIt does not say…one cannot substitute a phrase for the word in question.\nIt looks to me like that is exactly what it is saying: "it has no…substitute"\n\n \n\nThen you don't know what apposition means.\n\n\n"courageous" is a quality of a thing, and it is an adjective; "strong" is a quality of a thing, and it is an adjective\nMaybe we don't speak the same language.  Where I come from courage is a quality;\n\n \n\nWrong.  Courage is the name of a quality, and like all names, it is a noun.  To be a quality, it must be able to qualify something.  Courage is a noun, the abstract name of a quality in the phrase "courageous person."  If we remove the substance (i.e., person) and wish merely to name the quality (i.e., courageous) AS IF such quality existed independently of the person, we give it the name courage.\n\n \n\nWhere I come from, qualities have no independent existence apart from the things that they qualify.  There is no such thing as courage except as an abstraction, formed from watching and thinking about real, existing “courageous persons.”  Your position is the same as saying “Tallness is a quality; we only use the word tall to describe people and things that actually have that quality.”  According to this notion, tall is not a quality, but simply a grammatical adjective; tallness is the real quality -- right?  If tallness were a quality, it would have to be a quality OF something.  To be a quality OF something, we must be able to cast it in the form of the sentence "He, she, or it is _____."  Can we say "He is tallness"?  No?  Then, ipso facto, tallness is not a quality.\n\n \n\nRegarding the word at issue, we can abstract the quality from the thing qualified in the phrase “impactful lecture” to form the abstract noun impactfulness (horrid, I know).   But impactfulness is not a thing that exists independently until it decides to attach itself to a lecture; it either qualifies the lecture or it does not.  If it does, then it is called an “impactful lecture”, and impactful would be a quality of the lecture. \n\n \n\nAs for supposedly dodging your question on phonemes and meaning, you are asking a question about quantum physics before you can do arithmetic.  First learn the difference between nouns and adjectives – between SUBSTANCE and QUALITIES –then ask questions about phonemes and meaning.
78750
That is not a real word. I looked it up in about four dictionaries but didn't find it.