strike out
Frequency: Zipf frequency 4.65 in modern English
Meaning
verb
To lash out; to strike or hit at someone or something, particularly something in arm's length of the striker and at or near the level of the striker's head.
Intransitive verb
verb
To strongly criticize or make a verbal attack, particularly as a response to previous criticism or provocation.
verb
To draw a line through some text such as a printed or written sentence, with the purpose of deleting that text from the rest of the document.
verb
Of a batter, to be retired after three strikes (missed swings, as opposed to any other way of becoming "out"); of a pitcher, to cause this to happen to the batter.
verb
To fail; to be refused a request or to have a proposal not be accepted, in particular a request for a (hopefully romantic) date.
Colloquial; Intransitive verb
verb
To begin to make one's way.
Example Sentences
- "The gallant old skipper had struck out with his fist and the blow took effect; "spread the chap's nose all ower his fyesce" as he afterwards said ..."
- "... 1937, before the Maryland Farm Bureau Federation, he struck out at his critics. He said: When the Federal Government first undertook to help farmers get ..."
- "Mr. Randolph moved to strike out the words, "each House" and to insert the words, "the House of Representatives" in Sect. 7."
- "This document allowed for the king to reject the draft constitution in its entirety but appeared not to provide for the possibility that he might ask to strike out lines he did not like."
- "A Suit filed by respondent Establissment Sima of Vaduz was on the 2nd day of March, 1988 struck out by the Federal High Court. An application under Order 9 rule 6 Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules was argued before that court on 17th day of October, 1988 for relisting the suit. Even though the present appellant as respondent to that motion opposed, the prayer was granted."
- "The Government requested that the applications be partly struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, challenging the right of the heirs of the four applicants who had died in the course of the proceedings (Mr Hristozov, Mr Petrov, Ms Pencheva and Mr Behar, see paragraph 4 above) to pursue the applications in their stead. In their view, those heirs could not claim to be indirect victims, and did not have a valid interest in obtaining a ruling by the Court, because the alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention did not affect them, for two reasons. First, the authorities’ refusal to allow the applicants access to the unauthorised medicinal product that they wished to have administered did not affect other individuals, such as their heirs. Secondly, the rights invoked by the applicants were deeply personal in nature. Moreover, it was not the Court’s task to determine in the abstract whether the relevant domestic law provisions were in line with the Convention."