from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. One that qualifies, especially one that has or fulfills all appropriate qualifications, as for a position, office, or task.
- n. Grammar A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of another word or phrase.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. One who qualifies for something, especially a contestant who qualifies for a stage in a competition.
- n. A preliminary stage of a competition.
- n. A word or phrase, such as an adjective or adverb, that describes or characterizes another word or phrase, such as a noun or verb; a modifier; that adds or subtracts attributes to another.
- n. A marker that qualifies or modifies another code element.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. One who, or that which, qualifies; that which modifies, reduces, tempers or restrains.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who or that which qualifies; that which modifies, reduces, tempers, or restrains; specifically, in grammar, a word that qualifies another, as an adjective a noun, or an adverb a verb, etc.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. a content word that qualifies the meaning of a noun or verb
- n. a contestant who meets certain requirements and so qualifies to take part in the next stage of competition
Sorry, no etymologies found.
* Thanks, Jayack, for reminding me that a qualifier is needed.
Also, the final, additional qualifier is suspicious, too -- "for political advantage."
The only qualifier is a 32hr work week, and it makes no distinction between the AVERAGE woman working 10hrs a week less than men, nor does it take into account such things as women taking time off for having children (averaged 5yrs out of career) nor does it take into account that the AVERAGE woman tends to retire at a younger than men.
And I say again that where you have fiscal mismanagement the mismanagement will occur whether the levy qualifier is 50% + 1, 60%, or 99%.
This means that Dummett's "never" qualifier is unnecessary, and thus your objection to my argument breaks down.
Again, this shows that Dummett's "never" qualifier is unnecessary.
Another important qualifier is that the Libet's experimental data supports how retrocausality is directly exhibited by biological organisms.
I'm guessing that it is, and the only reason for the qualifier is that the Dakota board won't confirm it out of concern for maintaining some sort of mystique.
The only qualifier is that you have to have an active Galaxies account - which you could for 14 days at least with the free trial from Gamespot.
There is also another kind of qualifier, that is obtained by getting a partially distinct footing for the subject, in a province of thought which is not under such analogies.