All for naught is an idiom that means “all for nothing”, e.g. Kate didn’t get the promotion, and she felt her hard work was all for naught. This spelling, while used occasionally in archaic English, is no longer considered correct, and is sometimes used in British English to mean “zero”.
Q. What is the opposite of not at all?
What is the opposite of not at all?
| completely | really |
|---|---|
| broadly | stupendously |
| in every respect | incomparably |
| right | well |
| signally | way |
Q. Is not at all a sentence?
She was not at all polite to his new girlfriend when they met over the weekend. I am not at all hungry after the large breakfast that we had earlier. I’m not at all impressed with your stupid ideas.
Q. WHAT DOES NOT FOR NOT MEAN?
In its straightforward “literal” sense, not for nothing is equivalent to for a very good reason. But lately in the US it’s used idiomatically (often followed by but) defined by UrbanDictionary as… used to soften the blow of something that would normally be offensive or come on too strong.
Q. Why do British say naught?
Whilst British English makes this distinction, in United States English, the spelling “naught” is preferred for both the literal and rhetorical/poetic senses. “Naught” and “nought” come from the Old English “nāwiht” and “nōwiht”, respectively, both of which mean “nothing”.
Q. Who is a foil to Tybalt?
In Romeo and Juliet, Romeo’s cousin Benvolio (whose name even means good will or benevolence) and Tybalt are foils. While Benvolio is just a nice guy who does everything in his power to stop a fight and keep the peace, Tybalt can’t draw his sword quickly enough.
Q. Who is the tragic hero of Romeo and Juliet?
In William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is “a tragic hero.” This is according to Aristotle’s definition, a tragic hero is a character “who is neither completely good nor completely bad, but also a member of royalty.” Romeo is a tragic hero because he does many good things, but many bad things, as well.
