Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Articles' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Articles'

Looking for some tips and/or curriculum suggestions

mikesusangray — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:50:11 GMT

Hi all!

I've been giving English conversation lessons to a theology professor for about a year now. He's getting on in the years - a couple years from retirement - and his primary goal has been just to get his spoken English going a little stronger. His mother tongue is French but he's been teaching at a German language university for many years.

I'd like to add some more specific inputs to our lessons but I can't seem to find the right material. His passive skills are excellent - he reads widely and with perfect comprehension in his field - and he can communicate quite understandably. He is a linguistics specialist and can grasp any concept about the language immediately. I brought along Cambridge Advanced Grammar in Use and he could plow through a chapter in five minutes with perfect conceptual comprehension.

However, he also continues to make very simple errors - for example, he has trouble choosing between present simple and continuous or often uses the present tense for past events. Sentence order tends to get wander hither and yon while definite and indefinite articles come and go with the tide. (Prepositions are a problem too, but I won't beat him to hard there - prepositions are difficult in any new language.) In many cases his mistakes are typical of French or German speech patterns.

One other limitation is that he enjoys the weekly lessons (a good hour), but doesn't have much time to study in between.

Right now we spend about 15 minutes reading a chapter from Advanced Grammar in Use and about 45 minutes talking about just about anything under the sun, while I take notes and show him problems under the categories Pronunciation/Articles & Prespositions/Word Order/Other Grammar/Vocabulary/Idioms. However, I don't think the work book is a good choice - particularly since he doesn't do the homework - and it seems like he isn't making very good progress with his typical problem patterns - though he greets them like old friends when I point them out.

Any tips here?

Re: article

Feebs11 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:45:48 GMT

Anonymous
Thank you.
You said:

Usually when we introduce a common noun into a conversation for the first time we use the indefinite article, then when we refer back to that item/person/etc. we use the definite.

Does it apply to what seems to be a common noun used a game instruction section like as in "... pick one person to be 'Volcano'"?? What do quotation marks around a common noun mean to you in this type of writing? I wish for the best possible answer.

"Volcano" is presumably the name or title of that player, so it is indicating that this is a name and not an exploding mountain. You would not put an article before it unless there are more than one players with the name/title (as was indicated further onin the passage above),

Re: article

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:32:51 GMT

Thank you.

You said:

Usually when we introduce a common noun into a conversation for the first time we use the infinite article, then when we refer back to that item/person/etc. we use the definite.

Does it apply to what seems to be a common noun used a game instruction section like as in "... pick one person to be 'Volcano'"?? What do quotation marks around a common noun mean to you in this type of writing? I wish for the best possible answer.

Re: article

Huevos — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:34:08 GMT

Usually when we introduce a common noun into a conversation for the first time we use the indefinite article, then when we refer back to that item/person/etc. we use the definite.

There was a man. The man was eating an apple. Although the apple appeared fresh it contained a worm. The worm infected the man with a virus. The virus was poisonous and caused the man to die.

Re: Puzzle about the pronunciation of the word 'THE'

Mister Micawber — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:22:23 GMT

.
Hello Mathew, and welcome to English Forums.

The 2 pronunciations of 'the' are not grammar rules, but physical effects of the smooth flow of sounds between words-- they are more like laws of physics. Native speakers (lucky us!) do not have to affirm pronunciations-- we just talk without thinking. However, I can tell you that in the native mind, the definite and indefinite articles are mostly already attached to their nouns, so that they are conceived and produced with a single thought. This kind of conversation is common:

A: I see you've got a pear for lunch.
B: A what?
A: A pear.
B: Oh no, that's the apple you gave me this morning.
A; The what?
B: The apple-- you remember?

Re: must be past perfect?

Delmobile — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:59:15 GMT

"he hadn't seen the article in almost half a century" - I would use past perfect here. The speaker is describing not a single occurrence but a long period during which he has not seen whatever it is.

Yesterday, I looked for Dapper Dan hair jelly at the store and didn't see it.

I haven't seen Dapper Dan brand for years now.

Yesterday, he said that he hadn't seen Dapper Dan for years.

I would also use past perfect in your second example. Without context, it sounds as though the narrator is referring to quite a bit of conversation, none of which has been addressed to him. Past perfect makes it clear that it is the whole conversation, not just the last remark, that is being described.

Again without more context, I think the last example doesn't require past perfect for the opposite, or inverse, reason: only Mr. Sweeney's most recent remark is referenced, not the entire conversation. It is a single event. "Was asking" is used instead of "had asked" or simply "asked" to emphasize that the question, unanswered, is still "hanging out there" - Mr. Sweeney is still waiting for his answer, so the "asking process" is in effect still taking place. If the musician were remembering a conversation that took place earlier in the day, than "had been asking" or "had asked" would be appropriate.

must be past perfect?

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:01:40 GMT

Hi,

I was looking at an article named "Metropolitan Diary" DATED October 16, 2000 by ENID NEMY from the New York Times and wonder if the past perfect tenses are absolutely required in some of the situations noted.

Passages from the article:

When he said he hadn't seen the item in almost half a century, the owner insisted he take a package without charge. -- To me, the past perfect tense was used in "he hadn't seen the item" since it is using the reported speech of "he say he didn't see the item in almost half a century."

"Finally the shoeshine was finished, and I said, 'It was nice talking to you,' when I suddenly realized that his conversation hadn't been addressed to me. He had been talking on his cellular phone the whole time. Needless to say, I was embarrassed. -- To me, the past perfect use as in "that his conversation hadn't been addressed to me" is good since it denotes the sequence of events as it being previous to the realizing of what happened but could this OK?
... , when I suddenly realized that his conversation wasn't addressed to me. Does it have to be a past perfect tense as Clive seemed to have said something like this rhetorically: If something occurred before something else, why not make it clear?

Then the light dawned and the musician realized trhat Mr. Sweeney was asking about the music and not inquiring about his profession. -- Why is there no need to change to passive past perfect like this since my reading of this is that the asking probably has occurred before Mr. Sweeney's realization -- why not make it passive past perfect here when the noted writer has used past perfect in a previous case although not in passive?? Then the light dawned and the musician realized that Mr. Sweeney had been asking about the music and not had been inquiring about his profession.

Re: What do you think about Turkish people?

Think_it_through — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:11:32 GMT

Hi Oceansoul,

I think you are doing very well for a 14 year old young man.

Please understand that I am not trying to attack Turkish people or Turkish pride. I think national pride is a very good thing. I want you to learn one thing though. Have you heard the saying, "History is written by the victors." It is believed that Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of England during WWII - said it.

The phrase means that the people, countries or leaders who win and rule are typically the ones who write history and therefore teach the children their perspective of history.

Now, if your were writing the history of your family, would you say all the ugly things about your family? All the deep dark secrets? Probably not. You might say they made some mistakes, but they were generally good people and had decent families. In the same way, leaders will not tell you the ugly things they do. They will tell you what they what you to know or what you want to hear: that your county is always good and proud and so on.

In America, during the period when slave ownership was "legal" in the southern states, the North might have written a newspaper article condemning the southern ungodly people who would actually own another person, beat them, or kill them. At the same time, the newspapers of the South might talk about how the North was persecuting them, that the black people were bought fairly and that slavery had been around in hundreds of countries since time began. . . . which one is right? which one is true?

They both have a different perspective or belief based on what they were taught and what they had grown up to believe. Today we look at slavery as being one of the greatest tragedies of our history, but we are also proud that our Constitution, and the work of millions, have abolished it.

Did you look at either of the websites I provided in the last email? I provided proof that there was mass killing in the early 1900s in Turkey. Did you consider looking at it? You tell me if it isn't true. Do you have proof that it did not occur? Or are you just telling me what you have been told by loyal Turkish people who don't what to believe it? Or worse, they don't what the young people to know the truth.

My point is, don't be ignorant (that is not a derogatory statement): Learn, investigate, find out the truth. Don't go through your life thinking that "everyone is telling lies about me and I hate them!" If it is not true, find out, show proof and change peoples minds. You will never change peoples minds by yelling louder.

I like this quote, "Instead of increasing your volume, improve your argument."

Conversations between people of different counties are very good, but they must be based on honesty and a willingness to learn of each other. I want to learn more about you. I hope we can have more honest discussions.

Re: GIVE A RIDE

CalifJim — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:12:24 GMT

New2grammar
I'd appreciate it if you could attempt to explain the difference.

I know that this repeats much of what was said above by others, but with complex topics sometimes just reading the same information with many different phrasings helps a little.

I bought it at Target.

Here Target refers to the entire company, regardless of which particular store the purchase was made at. It's nearly equivalent to (or rather, implies) I bought it at a Target store (See below.)

_____

I bought it at the Target on Elm Street.

Here Target is an adjective raised to the status of (common) noun by the absence of the word store. Meaning: I bought it at the Target store on Elm Street.

_____

I bought it at a Target.

Here again an adjective is raised to a noun. I'm guessing this one is not used as much as the version without the article. Meaning: I bought it at one of the stores operated by the company whose name is Target.

_____

I bought it at the Target.

Here, context would have established which Target store is meant. To use this one, there must be only one Target store that the listener could conclude is the store in question. Perhaps the conversation takes place in a small town with only one Target outlet. Because most of these large companies have so many stores, I would guess that this sentence would not be used much.

_____

Concerning bank, post office, and so on:

I was at the bank seems to me to mean I was at the bank that I usually go to / I was at "my" bank.

Actually I was at a bank, I suppose, in reality, but, besides not conveying the idea of my bank, that doesn't give the idea that I was doing bank-related business in the way that at the bank does.

The same oddity is present in several other expressions. I took the bus really means I took a bus, but a bus doesn't suggest a city-wide transportation system the way the bus does. (I used the local bus system.)

These are really difficult to explain! There are so many very slightly different usages!

Re: Article

New2grammar — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:25:56 GMT

I totally agree with CJ's answer.

CJ, but I have one question. How would you say #2 and 3 in everyday speech? I've been reading a lot of news articles so they are natural to me. When you say they are journalistic, which makes sense since I picked them up from news, I'm a bit shocked that they aren't used in casual conversation.

I'd say that they are all journalistic usages.