Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Expressions' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Expressions'

Re: "When" or "as"

Lone Swordsman — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:41:56 GMT

Thanks, Kooyeen

By the way, after googling it a liitle bit, I came across a web page that describes different adverb clauses with time expressions. If someone's still interested, here is the link:

http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blgr_adverbclauses_time.htm

So, the right answer to my question would be the first sentence.

Re: Could anyone lookthrough my Illustration Essay? "The Impossible Peace"

Chibi — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:18:17 GMT

Sorry, there's a problem with the former posted entry!

There Is No "Together" In Jerusalem

For Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem has been a city of hope and loss. It has been their homeland but also their battlefield. Its history has been filled with great joy but also with tragedy. In Hebrew, the name "Jerusalem" literally means a "city of peace" Ironically, people there have not seem such thing for a long time.(people there have not seem to live in harmony for ages) There have been numbers of peace plans to settle this conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians but not even one has succeeded everything has failed to succeed); occasionally, they have even worsened the situation (U should write this clause as a separated sentence). One of the most well-known solutions is the Oslo Accord, the first official agreement signed by the leaders of both sides. It was first seen as a (the) hope to the end of the conflict (âto end the conflictâ is better) that (so that) they would live peacefully together in a bi-national state. Yet ( However â in written language, it is better not to start a sentence with Yet/ But), some groups did not accept it and launched a series of suicide bombings. This accord is now viewed to have brought more hatred and violation to the area. Nevertheless, there are still many attempts. It seems that they could live together peacefully since they are similar in many ways regarding their religions and ancestor.(try another expression Ã better) However, after carefully examined (examining) current situations and history, one (U mean who?) has to admit that they will never co-exist (word choice?) peacefully in this common area. It is due to their beliefs that Jerusalem belongs only to them and no one else. (I think the use of pronounce is not clear here. âTheyâ & âtheirâ mean who: Jews or Muslims?) Furthermore, they hate each other so much that they will never want to live together.

The first reason why two-state solution is impossible (be impossible to do sth) is because (Ã that) they believe that (omit this word) all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people*. From the Jewish perspective, they have all the rights over this land due to God's will as well as their long close connection to it. According to the Bible, four thousands years ago, God promised that he will give Abraham, father of all the Jews, and his children the land of Canaan, or what is (omit) now the capital of the State of Israel. Since then, Jewish people have been waiting for that day to come (omit). The word "Jerusalem" is repeatedly mentioned several times in their daily prayers as well as in many special occasions, for instance, the Passover(Spiro, 2000). In addition, this area had once been under the reign of Jewish kings who had ruled for hundreds of years and built the first Jewish temple in this area. This temple has been the focus of (I guess a problem with word choice here) Jewish people around the world. They regard it as "the house of the Lord"(Bible in Spiro, 2000) and the direction (word choice, again?) in which they say their prayers to. If there is a place on earth that all Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives for, it would be this very place. A Jewish mayor once stated that this land represents, "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for"(Pipes, 2001).
Conversely, from the Palestinian perspective, they are blessed people who deserve the rights over to this holy place, not the cursed Jews. In the Koran, Jerusalem is said to be blessed. It was where Prophet Muhammed was taken up to heaven and met other Prophets(Spiro, 2000). The significance of it had been emphasized several times by Prophet Muhammed himself through his teachings. He stated that it is where a single act of worship is equal to a thousand, and whoever die there or near by would directly go to heaven(Soufan, n.d.). These have made it one of the three holiest place in Islam. Furthermore, in the Koran, while Muslims are regarded to be the most prestigious group of people, Jews are the opposite, "cursed and condemned"(Abbadi, n.d.). Thus, as it is required in Muslim faith, it is their duty to protect a religious site from being contaminated by those corrupted people and bring the holy place back to the right owners.
The second reason two-state solution is impossible is because of the prolonged aversion that they will never agree to live with their enemies. In the last eight years, approximately 5,000 Palestinians have been killed with (Ã and) more than 33,000 have been injured(Palestine Red Crescent, 2008). The causes were mostly due to shootings as well as tear gas. (try another expression here) Many of the others have been forced to leave their home making approximately 4.4 millions Palestine refugees around the world now(United Nations, 2008). Owing to the loss of ones they love and the harshness of dispersing, hatred has developed. Their expression (word choice?) of hatred has been from incitement of violation to suicide bombings. Terribly, those who carried those horrors (repetition should not be occur) were of all ages including young children. In school textbooks, Israel is described to be “a country of gangs, born in crime"(Israel Ministry, 2001) with Jews who are "arrogant and sly traitors"(Israel Ministry, 2001). These are what all children in Palestinian school have been educated, or to be more accurate, "brainwashed." Not to mention the impacts from family and society in which those children have been raised. Thus, hatred has been deepening (deepened) in all Palestinian hearts both of this generation and the coming generation.
In responding to Palestinian violence, Israel has established a military force and checkpoints to limit the number of Palestinians coming to Israel. The primary objective was to prevent terrorists. However, the presence of humiliation during the search, suffering from long waits at checkpoints, and soldiers' attacks on innocent civilians, has only brought more hatred among them(The Nation, 2008, p. 9A).

It is ironic that a supposed city of peace is actually the most contentious (word choice) city on earth. Numerous peace plans have been made but then were collapsed. The hatred between Israelis and Palestinians has been strongly expressed though violation, and each has clearly stated that they are the only group whom Jerusalem belongs to. This contention has accumulated over a long period of time and it is getting worse. It is useless to force them to live together. No such plans have ever worked and will never work. At least they have given it a try, nevertheless. There is always a light in the dark, I believe. When the darkness disappears, the light would shine. Even though I have concluded that the Jews and Palestinians will never co-exist together in Jerusalem, I always wish that I have been wrong. Let the light shine and the city of peace becomes real. * If I were u, I will express like: Firstly, two-state solution fail to succeed because they believe that all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people.

Re: Could anyone lookthrough my Illustration Essay? "The Impossible Peace"

Chibi — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:07:08 GMT

I have no ideas about the content or the organization of focused points. I just have some suggestions on word choices, expressions and grammar. The highlighted lines include possible problems and the red words are my suggestions to improve the writing.

Hope that it'll be useful!

There Is No "Together" In Jerusalem

For Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem has been a city of hope and loss. It has been their homeland but also their battlefield. Its history has been filled with great joy but also with tragedy. In Hebrew, the name "Jerusalem" literally means a "city of peace" Ironically, people there have not seem such thing for a long time.(Ã people there have not seem to live in harmony for ages) There have been numbers of peace plans to settle this conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians but not even one has succeeded (Ã everything has failed to succeed); occasionally, they have even worsened the situation (U should write this clause as a separated sentence Ã be clearer). One of the most well-known solutions is the Oslo Accord, the first official agreement signed by the leaders of both sides. It was first seen as a (Ã the) hope to the end of the conflict (âto end the conflictâ is better) that (Ã so that) they would live peacefully together in a bi-national state. Yet (Ã However â in written language, it is better not to start a sentence with Yet/ But), some groups did not accept it and launched a series of suicide bombings. This accord is now viewed to have brought more hatred and violation to the area. Nevertheless, there are still many attempts. It seems that they could live together peacefully since they are similar in many ways regarding their religions and ancestor.(try another expression Ã better) However, after carefully examined (examining) current situations and history, one (U mean who?) has to admit that they will never co-exist (word choice?) peacefully in this common area. It is due to their beliefs that Jerusalem belongs only to them and no one else. (I think the use of pronounce is not clear here. âTheyâ & âtheirâ mean who: Jews or Muslims?) Furthermore, they hate each other so much that they will never want to live together.

The first reason why two-state solution is impossible (be impossible to do sth) is because (Ã that) they believe that (omit this word) all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people*. From the Jewish perspective, they have all the rights over this land due to God's will as well as their long close connection to it. According to the Bible, four thousands years ago, God promised that he will give Abraham, father of all the Jews, and his children the land of Canaan, or what is (omit) now the capital of the State of Israel. Since then, Jewish people have been waiting for that day to come (omit). The word "Jerusalem" is repeatedly mentioned several times in their daily prayers as well as in many special occasions, for instance, the Passover(Spiro, 2000). In addition, this area had once been under the reign of Jewish kings who had ruled for hundreds of years and built the first Jewish temple in this area. This temple has been the focus of (I guess a problem with word choice here) Jewish people around the world. They regard it as "the house of the Lord"(Bible in Spiro, 2000) and the direction (word choice, again?) in which they say their prayers to. If there is a place on earth that all Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives for, it would be this very place. A Jewish mayor once stated that this land represents, "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for"(Pipes, 2001).
Conversely, from the Palestinian perspective, they are blessed people who deserve the rights over to this holy place, not the cursed Jews. In the Koran, Jerusalem is said to be blessed. It was where Prophet Muhammed was taken up to heaven and met other Prophets(Spiro, 2000). The significance of it had been emphasized several times by Prophet Muhammed himself through his teachings. He stated that it is where a single act of worship is equal to a thousand, and whoever die there or near by would directly go to heaven(Soufan, n.d.). These have made it one of the three holiest place in Islam. Furthermore, in the Koran, while Muslims are regarded to be the most prestigious group of people, Jews are the opposite, "cursed and condemned"(Abbadi, n.d.). Thus, as it is required in Muslim faith, it is their duty to protect a religious site from being contaminated by those corrupted people and bring the holy place back to the right owners.
The second reason two-state solution is impossible is because of the prolonged aversion that they will never agree to live with their enemies. In the last eight years, approximately 5,000 Palestinians have been killed with (Ã and) more than 33,000 have been injured(Palestine Red Crescent, 2008). The causes were mostly due to shootings as well as tear gas. (try another expression here) Many of the others have been forced to leave their home making approximately 4.4 millions Palestine refugees around the world now(United Nations, 2008). Owing to the loss of ones they love and the harshness of dispersing, hatred has developed. Their expression (word choice?) of hatred has been from incitement of violation to suicide bombings. Terribly, those who carried those horrors (repetition should not be occur) were of all ages including young children. In school textbooks, Israel is described to be “a country of gangs, born in crime"(Israel Ministry, 2001) with Jews who are "arrogant and sly traitors"(Israel Ministry, 2001). These are what all children in Palestinian school have been educated, or to be more accurate, "brainwashed." Not to mention the impacts from family and society in which those children have been raised. Thus, hatred has been deepening (deepened) in all Palestinian hearts both of this generation and the coming generation.
In responding to Palestinian violence, Israel has established a military force and checkpoints to limit the number of Palestinians coming to Israel. The primary objective was to prevent terrorists. However, the presence of humiliation during the search, suffering from long waits at checkpoints, and soldiers' attacks on innocent civilians, has only brought more hatred among them(The Nation, 2008, p. 9A).

It is ironic that a supposed city of peace is actually the most contentious (word choice) city on earth. Numerous peace plans have been made but then were collapsed. The hatred between Israelis and Palestinians has been strongly expressed though violation, and each has clearly stated that they are the only group whom Jerusalem belongs to. This contention has accumulated over a long period of time and it is getting worse. It is useless to force them to live together. No such plans have ever worked and will never work. At least they have given it a try, nevertheless. There is always a light in the dark, I believe. When the darkness disappears, the light would shine. Even though I have concluded that the Jews and Palestinians will never co-exist together in Jerusalem, I always wish that I have been wrong. Let the light shine and the city of peace becomes real. * If I were u, I will express like: Firstly, two-state solution fail to succeed because they believe that all areas of Jerusalem belong to only their people.

Re: subordinate clauses?

Jackson6612 — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:57:34 GMT

Anonymous

Why are number 1's correct, whereas number 2's are not? Please note the commas.

First Part:
1. Stealing is illegal, because it is a crime.

2. Stealing is illegal because it is a crime.

Second Part:
1. Fishing is important to us, since it generates a lot of income.

2. Since fishing generates a lot income, it is important to us.

I can understand what thing is baffling you. In the First Part you would be thinking about the use of that comma. I don't think that the second sentence is incorrect. Sometimes what choice of words/punctuation an author uses in certain expressions is completely at his discretion. So both sentences in the First Part are correct. because is used when stating the reason for something. In the following sentence no comma is used in front of because. The President has played a shrewd diplomatic game because from the outset he called for direct talks with the United States...

Now come to the Second Part. since is used to introduce reasons or explanations. since=as. since can also be used at the start of the sentences but only when the sentence begins with the subordinate clause. e.g. Since you are unable to answer, we should ask someone else. In that sentence you cannot use since in front of we because the clause starting with we is the main one. The second sentence is also correct. It's just that it starts with the subordinate clause.

Kind regards,
Jackson

Re: the expression of action or that of occurrence?

Anonymous — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:47:05 GMT

ï¼ï¼What I mean is ---

P: He enjoyed listening to the music.

In P, the whole sentence (He enjoyed listening to the music.) clearly expresses a past occurrence / fact.

It's because the sentence has the Subject and Tense.

But "listening to the music" expresses a past action, I think, because it has no Subject, or Tense (no infornmation for time and place).

So I think whether "to do" / "---ing" / "that clause" is an action or occurrence doesn't depend on their time (past / present / future).

What I want to know most is whether we should regard as action or occurrence what we express both by using "---ing" and by that clauseï¼ï¼such as X and Y.

X: I remember seeing her in that shop the other day.

Y: I remember that I saw her in that shop the other day.

Re: kayak

Avangi — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:06:18 GMT

2nd one, last clause, possible substitution: and it shows no sign(s) of letting up.

3rd one, middle sentence, possibly more natural (casual): We've been waiting for it to clear up for four days now, and we have to go home tomorrow.

4th one, last sentence, possible option: It could have been a great vacation.

5th one: (JFK liked it.) I don't think it fits here. This is more like "making the best of a bad situation." I may be wrong, but I don't see your chosen expression as "snatching victory out of the jaws of defeat" so much as "make the very most of an opportunity."

7th one: A kayak operator would be a person who operates a kayak. You just paddle a kayak. You operate a bulldozer or a crane. What this guy operates is the concession. "Are you the owner/operator of the kayak rental?"

12th one: I think the operations are out of order. You could put it as an afterthought: And make sure you empty the water out first.

last one: someone drowned Perhaps more natural: rules don't allow anyone to cross the line. Don't get me in trouble.

- A.

Edit. Been thinking about "seize the moment," and decided you're probably right and I'm probably wrong.

Re: the expression of action or that of occurrence?

Anonymous — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:22:22 GMT

ï¼ï¼Hi, Grammar Greek. I'm a non-native speaker of English teaching English composition to non-native students. Often we must teach English structures grammatically.

What I want to know now is in what cases we should use 'that clause" and "to do".

I must teach my students as simply as possible, so I'm trying to work out a formula, on which we can find which to use between 'that clause" or "to do".

My idea is "to do" expresses Acton and "that clause" expresses Fact or Occurrence".

For example, in D "to play on that street" expresses Action, I think.

D: "It's dangerous to play on that street"

In E "that I succeeded in the test" expresses Fact or Occurrence, I think.

E: "It's fortunate that I succeeded in the test."

But I'm not sure about B / C.

B: I expect to see you tomorrow.

C: I expect that I will see you tomorrow.

A expresses either a desire/wish or a command as you point out.

In my idea a desire/wish or a command is a kind of action, if we divide into 2 factors (Action / Fact or Occurrence) all kinds of things relating to human life.
C expresses a prediction as you say. But strictly, I think "expect --" is a kind of action --- an action of predicting, and "that I will see you tomorrow" expresses a future occurrence or a possible fact.

What I want to know most is whether B is an expression of Action or that of Occurrence / Fact.

Maybe either will do, I think. I'd be glad if you give me some advice or comment.

Or is my idea or attempt awkward?

Re: whats a complete predicate??

Mister Micawber — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:00:46 GMT

.
A complete predicate is all of the sentence except for the subject.

An appositive is 'an expression that has 'the same function and the same relation to other elements in the sentence [as a previous noun], the second expression identifying or supplementing the first. In Washington, our first president, the phrase our first president is in apposition with Washington.'

Absolute (besides being a kind of vodka) probably refers to absolute construction, a phrasal structure somewhat like an appositive, in that it has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence: The day being sunny, we decided to go on a picnic.

A non-clause (not a term I am familiar with) appears to be any phrase or nonfinite clause that is not a finite clause. I found these examples on the Web:

Clauses	Non-Clauses
.
I went home	Going home
Because I went home	Alone and depressed
She is pretty	Becoming pretty
If she skips the appointment	Skipping the appointment
The boy hit the ball	Light weight and fluffy
While the parents cheered	Cheering parents
She laughed	The homework done
That he was wrong	On the table
Who wore the hat	Absent from class
Which we respected	The president of the club
Where the boys found the missing glove	One of the most admired members of the class

Re: as far as one's concerned

Avangi — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:17 GMT

Hi Anon,

Your questions are excellent and show a good grasp of the issues. You're pushing me to the limit of my knowledge on the subject, which is a good thing. My opinions are based more on a long lifetime of listening to people use the expressions, and less on reading about them in text books.

Clearly, the overall effect of these sentences depends on the "introductory expression," the message which follows, the previous context, and (if spoken) the inflection of the voice. The expression and the message have an influence on each other. You've shown that you understand this.

I agree with what you've said about the army example.

The teacher/student example is very interesting, because the expression is used in the second person as well as in the first person. (All three sentences are good.) To me, the student's reply comes across as rude [disrespectful] and argumentative. (I wonder if you thought of it in that way?) The student's position is contentious, and I doubt he could express it in a way that would not be offensive. Not only is he challenging the teacher's opinion; he's making it personal.

If you substituted "In your opinion/in my opinion" it would be somewhat less offensive. I can't honestly say that the difference lies in the "dismissiveness." Even if you simply say, "I thought the test was hard," you're in trouble, because you're challenging the teacher's judgment, not just a point of grammar, etc. "I had trouble with the test," is about as far as you can go. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

In the flea example, all the insult seems to be carried in the main clause. I don't believe you could say the insult goes back and retroactively colors "in my opinion." But on the other hand, you can't say that the "neutral" nature of "in my opinion" in any way lessens the impact of the insult, which lies in the extreme exaggeration of the comparison to a flea brain.

"In my opinion, she's not qualified for the job," is not insulting at all. "As far as I'm concerned, she's not qualified for the job," makes it more personal than "in my opinion," and seems to imply that you have your own reasons for rejecting her, which may go beyond a purely objective "opinion." You just plain don't want her = dismissive.

Best wishes, - A.

Edit. It looks like I've contradicted myself. "The expression and the message have an influence on each other." "I don't believe you could say the insult goes back and retroactively colors in my opinion."

For now, let's just leave it that whether or not the message actually changes the impact of the introductory expression is open to discussion.

Re: SO AS TO

Yankee — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:46:55 GMT

Anonymous
I f you take out "so as" it's exactly the same meaning.

As Clive has pointed out, the expression 'so as to' can mean 'in such a way as to'. In other words, 'so as to' can be used to refer to a result.

In the American Heritage Dictionary's usage notes for the word 'so', you will find this:

Both so and so that are acceptably used to introduce clauses that state a result or consequence: The Bay Bridge was still closed, so (or so that) the drive from San Francisco to the Berkeley campus took an hour and a half.

Here is the link: http://www.bartleby.com/61/4/S0520400.html