Forsake vs Isolation - What's the difference?
forsake | isolation |
To abandon, to give up, to leave (permanently) , to renounce.
English irregular verbs
English words prefixed with for-
----
==Norwegian Bokmål==
to give up, relinquish
to denounce (the devil)
(chiefly, uncountable) The state of being isolated, detached, or separated.
The act of isolating.
(diplomacy, of a country) The state of not having diplomatic relations with other countries (either with most or all other countries, or with specified other countries).
* 1975 , W. Raymond Duncan, “Problems of Cuban Foreign Policy”, chapter 20 of (editor), Cuban Communism , Fifth Edition, Transaction (publisher, 1985),
* 1993 September, Jon Brook Wolfsthal, “The Israeli initiative”, in , Volume 49, Number 7,
* 2009 , Dore Gold, The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West , Regnery Publishing, ISBN 9781596985711,
(chemistry) The obtaining of an element from one of its compounds, or of a compound from a mixture
(medicine) The separation of a patient, suffering from a contagious disease, from contact with others
(computing) a database property that determines when and how changes made in one transaction are visible to other concurrent transactions
As a verb forsake
is to abandon, to give up, to leave (permanently) , to renounce.As a noun isolation is
isolation (act of isolating).forsake
English
Verb
References
* * Notes:Alternative forms
* (l)Verb
Derived terms
* (l)References
*isolation
English
Noun
page 486:
- As of 1975, diplomatic ostracism is still imposed by the Organization of American States (OAS). The inter-American community also exercises a trade embargo against Cuba. But even within this context of hemispheric isolation , Havana’s diplomacy is strikingly contradictory.
page 8:
- Israel could offer to ease North Korea’s isolation' with diplomatic recognition,
page 49:
- It [Europe] now pressed Washington to begin direct talks with Tehran, but Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, Rice’s point man on Iran, still stressed that diplomatic isolation of Iran—and not diplomatic engagement—was the only acceptable approach for dealing with the Iranian nuclear challenge.