What is the Latin translation for "no Day But Today" gramatically correct?
363459
Non est die sed hodie. which means 'There's no day but today'\nor Non est die nisi hodie, which means 'there's no day except today.' and, you can switch those words around in whatever order you like. The most classically correct would be 'Non die nisi hodie est.' It wouldn't be super correct anyways, since you don't really have a direct object in there or anything, but hope that helps.
415810
I understand this to mean not to worry fruitlessly about things that we have no control over. \n\nSo do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today.\n--Matthew 6.34\n\n--in the KJV (King James Version of 1611): Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
453202
"Yesterday was never here and tomorrow will never be but today is a gift that's why they call it 'present'."\n\nthe answer is tomorrow.
399021
baby on the way    - "un niño en camino"\nand one on the way - "y uno que viene en camino"\n\nmy due date is - "la fecha estimada del parto es...(add date)"\nthe baby is due... - "estimaron que el niño va a nacer el...(add date)"
89063
'daily'. It is the feminin version of adjective 'diario'\n\nExamples:\n\n'De uso diario' = of daily use\n'Aplicación diaria' = daily application
679176
How about something from Latin, such as "carpe diem" which means "seize the day" or "tempus fugit" which means "time flies" or "facta non verba" which means "deeds not words" or "cogito ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am"?\n\nThese links may help.
98871
It's latin for "Sieze the day!"
511257
I would say 2 and 4 but those are still gramatically incorrect.  It would be better to say "I got out of school/work early today."
261201
nope\n\nyesterday is used when you speak direct speech\n\nthe day before is used when speaking indirect/reported speech
510141
The answer is "daily."  Yahoo! may not want to try to explain it, because if you don't live in the U.S.'s Pacific Time Zone, the "day" can begin at a pretty strange time (like 2 p.m., 9 a.m., etc.).
605471
Do they?  I'm not watching any english news reports so haven't noticed it.  Grammatically speaking, it is incorrect.  You use the preposition on before specific names of days or dates, like on Monday, or on May 25, but it does not sound right when you say on tomorrow or on yesterday(you can use for before tomorrow and yesterday).  Yeah, it can get annoying, but we have to accept that languages undergo a lot of changes, these also evolve or become extinct like living things, as it is mixed with other languages or when it is spoken by other ethnicities. There is the emergence of a distinctive language spoken in a certain region, like Singlish in Singapore or tag-lish in the Philippines, or maybe Hin-lish in India(they have their own english expressions that you can only hear from that place) Even for British and American English, there are marked differences and so with Australian.  And with the advancement of technology, it can get worse.  Just notice how the young generation seem to have their own english language and spelling.  People nowadays don't even bother with proper spellings.  As long as it sounds the same, it is okay, which can be another pet-peeve for some people.  Maybe in a few years, we'd be speaking in sms language.  \n\nFor the meantime, what you can do is to write to these TV stations and point out about their mistake and maybe they will rectify it.  But don't get too upset about it. It's the natural progression of things in this world.
572283
stardate...\n\nor the Aztec calender they were only off 1 day in 6000 years...
671020
B)a<b\n\n2 Thursdays before the 15th and 3 Thursdays after the 15th.
1118982
yesterday is one day before today
574279
"Nullum effugium!" (no way out!) might suit your purposes. However the versions that would be more in the Classical Latin style are as follows.\n\nFieri non potest ut effugiamus \n- it is not possible for us to escape.\n\nNullo modo fieri potest ut effugiam \n- there is no way for me to escape. \n\nNequimus effugere\n- we cannot escape
1102585
You do NOT translate the "does" into Latin in that phrase.  "Does" is a meaningless element in this English sentence.  If this were Early Modern English you would say, "What killeth me not maketh me stronger".  In Modern English we cannot move the main verb like that, so we insert a meaningless "does" in there so that we can move something into that sentence position.
68449
ell-we is-he irthday-be i-se n-oe a eapyear-l now u figure that out (;-O\n ??????????????????????????????????????????????