ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: nature

Taka — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:01:22 GMT

Annvan wrote:
I also do translation work (Dutch to English) sometimes and I know how important it is to really understand something in order to translate it properly!

Then I'm sure you've also felt that one person's 'cryptic' is another person's 'clear', which makes translation work sometimes very difficult.

Re: nature

Taka — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:48:33 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
Environment here is being used in a general way ...environment - surroundings, location, millieu.

Good point, nona!

I didn't pay attention to the difference.

Thank you!

Re: nature

Annvan — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:17:50 GMT

That's an interesting paragraph - and I think it's so true - different cultures can have different views of time. Some cultures see time as 'absolute', other cultures see time as 'relative'.
... Sorry, I don't know if this actually helps you Taka in your understanding of the paragraph... I also do translation work (Dutch to English) sometimes and I know how important it is to really understand something in order to translate it properly!

Re: nature

nona the brit — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:14:11 GMT

Environment here is being used in a general way - it would be incorrect to force the words nature and environment together to form a new meaning (just because sometimes both nature and environment are words used in connection with countryside/landscape).

It is not talking specifically about natural environments.

Fixed in nature - fixed in form, unchangeable

environment - surroundings, location, millieu.

Re: nature

Taka — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:01:57 GMT

Well, now I have to make a translation here, so there is no 'either way'; I have to be more precise.

Grammar Geek wrote:
...they just have to accept that [the passing of] time is a factor in our lives that we can't do anything about. ...time is something we just have to accept "as-is."

Just for your information, the message of the entire paragraph is a bit different from what you say.

People of the Western world, particularly Americans, tend to think of time as something fixed in nature, something around us from which we cannot escape; an ever present part of the environment, just like the air we breathe. That it might be experienced in any other way seems unnatural and strange, a feeling which is rarely modified even when we begin to discover how really different it is handled by some other people. Within the West itself certain cultures rank time much lower in over-all importance than we do. In Latin America, for example, where time is treated rather cavalierly, one commonly hears the expression, “Our time or your time?” “Hora americana, hora mejicana?”

Re: nature

Grammar Geek — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:29:51 GMT

But I think that regardless of which definition of "nature" you pick, the essense of the sentence is people they they just have to accept that [the passing of] time is a factor in our lives that we can't do anything about. Whether it's "fixed in our environment" or "unchanging in its nature," either way, time is something we just have to accept "as-is."

Who else has another interpretation of the the entire sentence?

Re: nature

Taka — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:02:48 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
People think that time is fixed in the natural environment? Well, that doesn't make much sense to me.

1. It suggests that people would think that time isn't fixed in other environments.

Exactly.

Grammar Geek wrote:
We all understand the meaning of the sentence, even if we aren't sure what sense of the word he meant.

But Annvan, whose first language is English and who is a teacher of English, seems to have a different idea.

Re: nature

Grammar Geek — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:04:54 GMT

It's not that time is fixed, it's that the always-moving-forward, can't-go-back and can't-stand-still ASPECT of time is a "given" in our environment.

But this is one of the cases when over-analyzing isn't really helping, I think. We all understand the meaning of the sentence, even if we aren't sure what sense of the word he meant.

Re: nature

nona the brit — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:01:14 GMT

People think that time is fixed in the natural environment? Well, that doesn't make much sense to me.

1. It suggests that people would think that time isn't fixed in other environments.

2. Who thinks that time is fixed in the natural environment anyway? As opposed to what? Not exactly a common belief...I can't even get my head round it.

Re: nature

Taka — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:49:59 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
I still read it in the 'fixed in nature=immutable' sense. The other meaning doesn't make sense.

Just out of cuirosity, nona, why do you think the other meaning doesn't make sense?

Re: nature

nona the brit — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:07:12 GMT

I still read it in the 'fixed in nature=immutable' sense. The other meaning doesn't make sense.

Re: nature

Marius Hancu — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:52:05 GMT

I initially read:
fixed in nature= immutable, of a fixed nature
but I have to recognize, it could well mean
permanent in the nature around us
It's confusing.

Re: nature

Annvan — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:43:08 GMT

Yes, English is my mother tongue. I think "the fixation of time in the natural environment" simply means time, the passing of time. It's 'fixed' (... unless you've learnt to time travel!)

Re: nature

Taka — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:28:13 GMT

Milky wrote:
Just a side note: around.

?? What do you mean??

Re: nature

milky — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:21:12 GMT

Just a side note: around.