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

WOULD

shehan1212 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:37:12 GMT

In formal writing pepole use past simple tense.But i have seen many times books and other articles includes sentenceswhich have been made of "would"...I know that "would" is used in conditional clauses.Where as i realy want to know what are the situations where i can use "wolud" and please explain me whats the difference between "would" and "will".Can i use these two terms as the same meaning in formal writting?

what i want to know is this.please help me to find out this,iv beendying to get a answer which i expect,,
here,this is a sentence which i found in my text book.

"Under this method materials in concern WOULD BE stored in two different places in th company's storeroom"

so my question is this is a general fact.this is tru.so cant i use present simple tense?
"Under this method material in concern ARE STORED.."

People fought in a Chinese translation forum

Lafingn — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:25:09 GMT

Hi, everyone! Happy New Year!

But I'm trying to be happy. I'm pulled into a debate over "the very English standard" in a Chinese translation forum. A "sensible" lad who crammed in China's New Oriental Language School asserts that many usages, including those in nytimes.com, economist.com, native speakers' blogs and more, are actually non-stardard and thus wrong. Even some in Oxford dictionaries now become "obsolete" or "unacceptable". One of his examples is about "which" used as relative pronoun:

A student who talks about 'strong rain' may make himself understood, but possibly not without provoking a smile or a correction, which may or may not matter.

He says which, referring a circumstance here, is a misuse. The original sentence is from the introduction to an Oxford dictionary. By the way, he also laughs at the part "but possibly not without provoking a smile or a correction" because he thinks it's bad English (maybe not very smooth for his limited reading), while I don't agree.

Also denied is another example from American Traditional Dictionary:

He left early, which was wise.

He says every teacher in New Oriental would frown on this because they were taught in school that the relative pronoun "which" should in no way substitute a foregoing sentence in the proceeding non-restrictive attributive clause.

Is that true, or the dictionary wrong?

My next question is what's your opinion about education New Oriental offers, if you happen to know. Since I really doubt about it.

He posted his comments(sorry for his dirty words)ï¼

Should any native English speaker look at what you put down here, he or she will definitely go to see a doctor as this foreigner will not only be amused, but also be suffering from a nausea and vomiting disease. Such trashy and junk words were put together to display how poor and messy your so-called English (in fact, even worse than typical Chinglish) is . You can certainly regard me as stinky because I have been so unluckily gotten into contact with you, a piece of ***. You can rest your mind that I am far inferior to you in this regard. How funny a stupid idiot like you could have an idea of building up a team! Do you believe that there are many other people on this world, who can be as similarly asinine as you are. Just go to the hell and kiss your mom's ass! Your so-called dream ( actually a kind of deliria) will never come true. Otherwise, our society as a whole will run into an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality. BTW, you shall never compare yourself with violinqq, as doing so is like comparing a piece of *** with a brillant piece of jade.

My reply and comments on his English (he says he can't read because "it's a mess"):

while "poor" is my guts feeling to your lanugage, a second thought is carefully given to the reasoning why it should look so awkward. considering the paragraph Aurorean offered as a prototype in many aspects, a thorough examination helps to identify some factors that are about the language per se and that can be quickly wiped off upon notice; the rest factors, however, extend far beyond language due to their much deeper roots in thinking habits upon which words and patterns are selected.

Generally the language in question features lengthy and humdrum, which is often the lesson of Chinese English. On the whole, Chinese tolerates more repetition than English does. Oftimes parallel words and phrases, or structures of like meanings in Chinese break out powerful rather than demolish the strength. But in English, it's the other way around. Silimar elements piled on can be worse than grammar mistakes with their lower efficiency in conveying meaning and the breakup in reading, for it distracts readers, even annoys them. And Chinese is a more detailed languge. While many elements in English are self-evident and can be safely left out, doing so in Chinese is risky and would give an abrupt sense, though it can still be understood with a little extra effort. Chinese English is humdrum not just for a considerable amount of repetition, but also for a lack of lively vocabulary, sentence patterns, and other forceful expressions.

The above mentioned, it becomes apparent why and how literal translation, or writing English from Chinese structures, is problematic.

Let's proceed to the problems packed in the following paragraph, by courtesy of our Mr. Aurorean, the personality of amusing grudges and grievances, not thoroughly denied though could have been, thanks to the benevolence of the translation industry and many open-minded people. Thanks to Mr. Aurorean, for his unabashed display of his self-styled good english, which may otherwise help to benchmark many translators' work.

Should any native English speaker look at what you put down here, he or she will definitely go to see a doctor as this foreigner will not only be amused, but also be suffering from a nausea and vomiting disease.
Comments: very low efficiency. Simply put it like this: Any English native speaker at your words will... Well, "what your put down here" is self-evident in the context so it's needless. Should..... is a relatively big structure here but we don't like it to do a small job. "not only be amused, but also be" is childish logic, it's dull, not interesting, not funny.

Such trashy and junk words were put together to display how poor and messy your so-called English (in fact, even worse than typical Chinglish) is .
comments: just select one between trashy and junk, since either repeats the other here. We know such words "were put together", you don't have to speak it out, which means to emphasize. So it's needless too. poor and messy, just choose the latter, because messy conveys "poor". so-called is not a good word; the meaning is not ironic enough translated from chinese literally. So see my changes:
The bundle of words makes a valueless display of the english of yours. One won't think futher if it's chinglish or not.

See? You don't have to look sissy by shouting words like "such", "how poor", "how messy". You may have never been praised as a sense of humour by females. Well, that's okay. But you should at least know how to say barbed words in a polite manner. Or how you dare to pick up english as a gun?

You can certainly regard me as stinky because I have been so unluckily gotten into contact with you, a piece of ***.
Comments: a master of english don't end a long sentence with "***." the logic is baby level too. not attractive at all. Well, try some Shakespeare way:
What's in the name "Aurorean"
that we don't call by ***
but smells at well

You can rest your mind that I am far inferior to you in this regard. How funny a stupid idiot like you could have an idea of building up a team!
Comments: you know why you look sissy? because you tag and cap others with boorish lore. now calm down and check back your words, you were being so desperate. God won't tag you with "idiot", because he's merciful. We won't too, because it's overtly evident what a kind of thing before us. Your words reflect yourself. you are your words.

Do you believe that there are many other people on this world, who can be as similarly asinine as you are. Just go to the hell and kiss your mom's ass!
Comments: really childish logic. i'm so sorry but your imagination is so flat. You just hurt your mother. You are 30 something. So your mother is a senior now. God bless her. hope she survives you 'cause you two are to split into different ends of the world in the long run. Cherish the rest time.

Your so-called dream ( actually a kind of deliria) will never come true. Otherwise, our society as a whole will run into an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality. BTW, you shall never compare yourself with violinqq, as doing so is like comparing a piece of *** with a brillant piece of jade.
Comments: Yuk, instead just say "I'm worried about your dream" to avoid sissy impression and create gentleman image. don't say "our society as a whole" because you are not supposed to be one of the leadership level right? "an overall catastrophe of deterioration of our population quality" sound lousy: words are too long. simply try "the end of the world", and it's more vivid and impressive. by the way, i'm not that great, and the world won't collapse for my individual existence. I'm so worried about your state of health. check your family tree and see if one or two cases of Alzheimer's disease or mongolian exist. by the way, who grants you the big position to compare? look at yourself, even a far cry from a botched creature by god.

Whose English is more acceptable? I'm in want of your opinions.

Thank you all in advance.

Re: The infinitive "to be"

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:34:32 GMT

Your questions reveal the limitations of the traditional technical vocabulary for discussing grammatical structures!

You can think of infinitives as a direct objects of the verb want.
On the other hand, want takes a clause as its complement.

I want (He helps us).

But the complement clause is expressed with an infinitive. He helps us >> him to help us.
The final, correct form of I want (He helps us) is I want him to help us.

When the subject of want is the same as the subject of the complement clause, the subject in the complement clause is deleted:

I want (I am a doctor) >> I want me to be a doctor >> I want me to be a doctor >> I want to be a doctor.

In the same way:

She wants (She is happy) >> She wants her to be happy >> She wants ~~her~~ to be happy. >> She wants to be happy.

In the first of these a doctor is a predicate noun/nominative, as you say. And in the second, happy is a predicate adjective, as you say.
___________

The other pattern is quite different. is/are/was/were to be is a semi-modal construction with an idiomatic meaning. The whole pattern (in brackets below) can be analyzed as a verb phrase.

She [is to be] a doctor.

CJ

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:32:51 GMT

"Grammar and exercises are only requirements of the syllabus, not of learning a language. Did you learn the grammar of your mother-tongue when you were acquiring it? Most of you may still not know the grammar of your mother-tongue but you speak it effortlessly."

If grammar means identifying the names of parts of speech, the names of the tenses, and that sort of knowledge of terminology (Past Perfect Progressive), then this is certainly not a requirement of learning a language.
If grammar means the knowledge of which words and word-forms go together to make coherent communications within a language, even if instinctively applied, then I think we'd have to say that grammar is a requirement of some kind.

I agree that I did not learn the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the first sense of 'grammar'.
I do think, however, that I "learned"/acquired the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the second sense of 'grammar'. In fact, except for vocabulary, which is a simple matter of stimulus-response, it seems to me that the acquistion of a language IS the acquisition of its grammar.

It is believed that between the ages of six and ten, the cells in the language acquistion portion of the brain die off or take on a different function, so that it is impossible to acquire language after approximately age 10, certainly after puberty. Remember that the acquistion of language is like birds "learning" to fly. They don't exactly study a flight manual before taking off on their first flight!

Nevertheless, though the language acquisition window closes around puberty, most likely for biological reasons, and we may no longer be able to acquire a new language, we can certainly still learn one. At this point, we are usually forced to use a lot of artificial techniques to help us. The logic of a language is no longer as easily grasped instinctively, but must be, we might almost say, 'computed', at least in the beginning stages. The rules for these 'computations' are called grammar. The 'computation' is not thinking within language but thinking about language, examining language somewhat more objectively than is typical within the language we first acquired. Sometimes the computational aspect is presented very formally to the learner. In such systems there is an underlying belief (in the mind of the instuctors) that the terminology is so useful in explaining the grammatical machinery that it cannot be dispensed with. In other methodologies a more flexible approach is used, sometimes out of fear of the very real possibility (I think) that knowledge of the terminology will be seen as more important than the ability to express oneself in the target language.

Regardless of how formal or informal, or how rigid or flexible the presentation, I don't see how anyone can learn a language without exercises, despite the obvious fact that we all acquired one without exercises. We can't expect our muscles to grow strong without exercise, and the failure of some to see the analogy with mental activity is quite puzzling. And the exercises that are needed are language exercises (practicing using the language), not grammar exercises (practicing using the terminology of grammar). I find it disheartening to see questions on this very forum in which it is obvious that students must negotiate the fine points of the terminology: Is this a participle acting as a noun acting as an adverbial complement of a phrasal verb used idiomatically or is this a progressive tense in the passive voice accompanied by an adverbial dependent clause of concession? Apparently, within the educational system of such students these matters pass as learning English. So in that sense, I'm against 'exercises'!

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

In summary, I believe the author of the quote above is taking grammar to mean excessive preoccupation with terminology and exercises to mean exercises designed to learn the terminology of grammar. Taken in this way, I must agree with the author. Of course, it is possible to interpret those words differently, which is why the statement has generated so many comments. I prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he or she was merely describing an approach which concentrates more on the target language and less on the terminology.

CJ

"he was most frustrated to be perceived as conforming to type"

Selecter — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:26:52 GMT

I am still translating(with the purpose of enriching my vocabulary) that very challengeable article... Check out the underlined part. I surrender. What does it mean, anyway? If you would rephrase that clause, I would be grateful :-)

At 17, Culkin married actress Rachel Miner; by 20, he was divorced. When he was arrested a little more than a year ago for possession of marijuana, he was most frustrated to be perceived as conforming to type. âYou know, I am a former child actor,â he says with a sarcastic chuckle. âIâm supposed to be a lot more f***** up than I am. I took a certain amount of pride that I wasnât that clichÃ©, so it was, like, Oh, great, I gave a lot of people exactly what they wanted.â

Does "drug possession" mean
a) drug usage + storing?
b) drug usage
c) drug storing
?

Re: Could someone HELP me and CHECK my letter of motivation, please

Lil' Ruby Rose — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:49:42 GMT

Looks good to me - just a couple more suggestions:

and working environment. But I hope to improve - delete 'But'.

ZZZ provides the opportunity to achieve the goals I expect from a stay abroad - more natural to say something like 'ZZZ will allow me to fulfill my goals in studying abroad'. You will need a comma after this clause too.

become an engineer studying at ZZZZ - needs a comma after engineer

ZZZZ will deliver insight - a more natural vocabulary choice might be 'provide' or 'give me'

Good luck!

are there any guide for this?

Believer — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:19:52 GMT

Hi,

Are there any guides or rules in regard to the words, phrases or clauses in parentheses and those parts happen to be a part of a sentence?

eg,

... can have many variations (post-participle, time of day, vocabulary).

Re: How can you tell whether someone is a non-native speaker?

julielai — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:38:16 GMT

Just out of curiosity, Mr. P, how do you distinguish a native speaker who's learned a non-standard form of English from a decent non-native speaker? (e.g. How can you tell if a speaker born in India, Singapore or other Asian countries is native?)

MrPedantic wrote:

1. Discrepancies of register. A non-native speaker's English may be impeccable, for the most part; but slight failures of tone or register are most noticeable, in impeccable English. For instance, the non-native may use a word which a native speaker of that kind of English would never use in that context. Or a word may be used in a grammatical but unusual way. The commonest words are the most treacherous, in this connection: "quite", "nice", etc.

2. Absence of context. It's very difficult to provide sample sentences or chat for any length of time without revealing something about your background. When non-native speakers are writing naturally, they reveal something of their native background. When they are writing carefully, however, and perhaps do not wish to be taken for a native speaker, they reveal nothing. There may be literary references, for instance; but the little everyday details are missing.

3. Literary echoes. Sometimes non-native speakers use phrases they have come across in Shakespeare, Dickens, etc., or unwittingly catch the rhythm of well known writers.

4. Overly pure or consistent diction. By which I mean the kind of vocabulary we find in e.g. Jowett's translation of Plato. Non-native speakers who have reached a certain proficiency often dislike recent additions to everyday vocabulary, for instance.

5. Rhythm. Non-native speakers often bring a little of their native rhythm into English. The clauses may be not quite the right length; the pauses may sound mannered.

6. Grammatical regularity combined with inappropriate idioms. Grammar is the weakness of native speakers; idiom is the weakness of non-native speakers.

Maybe other members will have other ideas.

MrP

Re: How can you tell whether someone is a non-native speaker?

MrPedantic — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:18:41 GMT

Hello EU

Here are some things that occur to me:

1. Discrepancies of register. A non-native speaker's English may be impeccable, for the most part; but slight failures of tone or register are most noticeable, in impeccable English. For instance, the non-native may use a word which a native speaker of that kind of English would never use in that context. Or a word may be used in a grammatical but unusual way. The commonest words are the most treacherous, in this connection: "quite", "nice", etc.

2. Absence of context. It's very difficult to provide sample sentences or chat for any length of time without revealing something about your background. When non-native speakers are writing naturally, they reveal something of their native background. When they are writing carefully, however, and perhaps do not wish to be taken for a native speaker, they reveal nothing. There may be literary references, for instance; but the little everyday details are missing.

3. Literary echoes. Sometimes non-native speakers use phrases they have come across in Shakespeare, Dickens, etc., or unwittingly catch the rhythm of well known writers.

4. Overly pure or consistent diction. By which I mean the kind of vocabulary we find in e.g. Jowett's translation of Plato. Non-native speakers who have reached a certain proficiency often dislike recent additions to everyday vocabulary, for instance.

5. Rhythm. Non-native speakers often bring a little of their native rhythm into English. The clauses may be not quite the right length; the pauses may sound mannered.

6. Grammatical regularity combined with inappropriate idioms. Grammar is the weakness of native speakers; idiom is the weakness of non-native speakers.

Maybe other members will have other ideas.

MrP

Please check the grammar

Davidrock65 — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:21:14 GMT

I have to hand in the reports tomorrow. Could you please run a quick check through them? Thanks loads!!!

When asked to make a sentence with When J~ , J will ~, Harry sometimes gets confused with the order of two events happening and forgets to add s after verbs when they are placed after a third person in the when- clause. Please remind him that When describes the moment as a block of time, if you prefer moment to be only 1 slice of time, then when describes a block of time relative to some event. For example, When the baseball player went up to bat, he struck out means the pitcher pitched to the player at the moment that he has gone to home plate. When asked to make sentences with does, did and will, he occasionally mismatches the modal verbs with wrong time adverbs. Please have him get into the habit of reading five minutes a day, as many as he can of the sentences in each tense that he wrote in his homework. We have been rehearsing the play for the graduation. I anticipate that they will demonstrate an incredible performance to do us proud!

Please remind your child to pronounce voiceless P sound as in shop and cap and voiceless S sound after nouns to form plurals. Five minutes a day at home, please have your child listen to the CD and read as many of the yellow books as possible, in order to familiarize him with the sentence patterns and vocabulary, therefore improving his thinking in English.