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

Re: The translation of a diploma

Clive — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:07:26 GMT

Hi,

Born on (date) in (city) , son of Santa Clause, (name), (I want to add school number here. Can I say "with school number 1125698"? )You can say it, although it's not very idiomatic. But people will understand that this is a translation.

Doll Smith has been awarded this diploma on (date,) having completed a four year education in Foreign Language Teaching in 1990-1991 (in the original text there is a term/actually it is a phrase in Turkish meaning the time passed with learning at school. I wanted to translate its English but it seems that I couldn't find the right word. What can it be? I don't quite understand.) Why not say 'completed in 1991'?.

with a Bachelor's Degree with all the rights, privileges and honours to use this diploma as an EFL teacher by ordinance and regulations.

Clive

Re: The translation of a diploma

Doll — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:18:29 GMT

Clive

With a translation, it's really just a matter of trying to stick as close as possible to the original words, isn't it? ---- I think so but my teacher expects me to translate like a proffessional. He doesn't accept any other structures not close to the ones in his mind. He expects me to give the meaning which native speakers will understand without recognizing that it is a translation.For God's sake! They thought us nothing about translation for 3 years but now they want us to translate professionally even from TURKISH TO ENGLISH! (It is harder as you guess). I hope I will not fail in summer school.

Diplomas often use flowery, archaic and stilted language. Often, they are even in Latin.

Let's try to see if this can read "OK". - Believe me or not, I read the sentence with "ok" in my mind before writing it but I ended up writing "well".

Born on (date) in (city) , son of (name), Doll Smith has been awarded this diploma on (date,) having completed a four year Bachelor's Degree in Foreign Language Teaching between 1990-1991 (this isn't 4 years?), with all the rights, privileges and honours to use this diploma as an EFL teacher by ordinance and regulations.

Born on (date) in (city) , son of Santa Clause, (name), (I want to add school number here. Can I say "with school number 1125698"? )Doll Smith has been awarded this diploma on (date,) having completed a four year education in Foreign Language Teaching in 1990-1991 (in the original text there is a term/actually it is a phrase in Turkish meaning the time passed with learning at school. I wanted to translate its English but it seems that I couldn't find the right word. What can it be?) with a Bachelor's Degree with all the rights, privileges and honours to use this diploma as an EFL teacher by ordinance and regulations.

I am sorry, I must have confused the sentences while writing. This will make more sense now. Is it still okay with the changes?

Thanks for your help.

Re: article before a quoted content question

Mr Wordy — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:43:20 GMT

I don't personally think that this is an egregious error in informal writing, but I would avoid it in formal writing, where I'd say something like:

He said that he could append a clause to read "I am John Doe and I wrote this disclaimer."

(The only reason I used "append" is that "tack on" is kind of informal, and this is supposed to be a formal sentence.)

Pluralising quoted text by adding "s" is ugly in my view. I would usually resort to something like "a number of instances of '...' ".

Re: If I had listened to you

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:57:21 GMT

New2grammar
Oh no. I didn't buy a lottery ticket (?? This means any ticket of any lottery. How to be specific to the lottery his friend advised)

You could say "Oh no. I didn't buy that lottery ticket".

New2grammar
Why is there a condition? "supposing that the numbers had been selected before the draw"

The winning number was drawn, say, yesterday, and matched the number his friend advised him to buy

The condition is that the if clause may be fulfilled. In your sentences it is already impossible to fulfil the if clause making the sentences purely hypothesis. This is known as a type III conditional and is formed thus: if + past perfect + would + have + past participle. A conditional formed with if + simple past is known as a type II conditional and is used where it is still possible to fulfil the if clause however unlikely that may be.

Re: Grammar Suggestion

Mr Wordy — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:08:18 GMT

(Again, I should emphasise that these are just my personal views. Some of the questions have no "right" and "wrong" answers, and other people may have different opinions.)

1. Sitting at my writing desk placed right-hand side of open window, and working on my English assignment, resulted in adventurous and fascinated experience in such evening soft sunrays.

This version is much better in terms of number of adjectives and length of clauses, but there are several other things that aren't quite right. First, "placed right-hand side of open window" should be "placed at the right-hand side of the open window" (this could also be expressed in several other ways). However, you're writing a "mood" sentence here, not a surveyor's report, so saying that it's on the "right-hand side" seems an unnecessary intrusion to me. What does it matter if it's on the right or left? Who cares? So, for the first part of the sentence, I would say:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, ...

Moving on, "Sitting ... and working ... resulted in ..." is grammatically correct but weak here. This form would be great for a sentence such as "Sitting in this chair makes my back hurt", but here it's not specifically the act of sitting that resulted in the experience you describe, it's the whole ambience. So, I would start the next part of the sentence like this:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, I ...

Then you need to complete the sentence to explain what you experienced and/or how you felt. You should be able to adapt what you had originally, but I'd question the word "adventurous". Of course, in this kind of sentence you can say you felt anything you want, but I suspect that "adventurous" may not be quite what you mean.

2. Today, in these natural colors, stepping inn through my hazel gray opened window, over the blue wall, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

Here, "stepping" is the wrong verb ("streaming in" would be fine), "opened" would be better as "open", and I'd be greatly tempted to delete "hazel gray". I'd also delete the comma after "colors": the way that you've punctuated it suggests it might be you that's "stepping in". I think I'd also change the word order, to end up with something like:

Today, in these natural colors streaming over the blue wall and through my open window, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

This is not the greatest sentence ever written, but it's progressing.

It's difficult to explain why I prefer "seemingly" to "seem to be". In "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away." there is, to me, a "jerk" as we move from adjectival phrases ("relaxed", "light as fur") to a new substantive statement ("the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away"). To me, "seemingly" better fits the descriptive mood of this part of the sentence. But if you were starting a new sentence then "seem to be" would be correct: "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur. The dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away."

Two or more adjectives can quite happily modify one noun, but the thing is not to overdo it. "His sweet soft smile" is absolutely fine, though some people would put a comma after "sweet".

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.

conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:46:31 GMT

Hi, Two questions, if I may.

1. Is this a correct conditional?

Note that the priests had to look after their own fellowship with God if they were to minister to others.

To follow what I call "traditional patterns", it seems logical to write it as:

Note that the priests would have had to look after their own fellowship with God if they were to ministr to others. -- Is "would have had" allowed for a number 2 "were' conditional?

If I were president, I would give more money to ...

Can it be?

If I were president, I would have done more for the workers in the company.

2. Can we use a modal like 'can' in an if-clause?

If I can have more people in this project, I will (would??-- not possible??) be able to finish it on time.

Thanks.

Re: subordinate clauses?

26TMNTJG2PG — Sat, 24 May 2008 09:01:01 GMT

I think the two number 2's should be correct instead according to one of the functions of commas stated below:-

The comma is often used to separate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first.

After I brushed the cat, I lint-rollered my clothes. (optional comma)
I lint-rollered my clothes after I brushed the cat. (no comma)
[FROM ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29]

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