Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Capital letters' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Capital letters'

Re: doubt

Clive — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:07:15 GMT

Hi,

Does anyone know the difference between meaning Capitals letter or Block letters?

Are both accepted, arenÂ´t they?

Do the mean the same?

Is there any difference between them?

The common term is 'capital letters'.

In my experience, 'block letters' often refers to capital letters that are printed by hand, although you could also just call these 'capital letters'. Often, 'block letters' are large, eg when written on a blackboard.

Clive

Re: help me

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:48:10 GMT

Feebs11 wrote:
Heartbroken wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the difference:

BROAD WORD - wide scope of meaning of a word or general in meaning

VAGUE WORD - unclear meaning of a word

thanks alot>>>>>>>I NEED to have MORE EXPlaNATION PLEASE....

RELATING these two TERMSto ERRORS MADE BY NON NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH PLEASE................

Unless you take the time to write English properly, you will not be understood. Also, please do not type all in capital letters.

Please prove example of the misuse that you ask about. Your question is unanswerable as it stands.

i am so sorry ......i wrote like that way because i get used to write in a forum in that way......anyway sorry and my question is:what is the difference between broad words and vague words,,,that is when we can say that this word is broad and that word is vague.....i want please precise definitions.....

Re: What's difference between these two sentences?

Clive — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:21 GMT

Hi,

what is the difference between these two sentences:

i'll look foward to seeing you in class again...

i look foward to seeing you in class again...

In terms of grammar, #1 means the 'looking forward' will happen in the future, while #2 means it happens in the present.

However, in terms of meaning in everyday conversation there is really no difference. You can interchange these.

You seem to be interested in tenses but not in capital letters.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: please help me now..

Clive — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:02:50 GMT

Hi,

Please choose the correct sentences and state why?
- My friend is in a restaurant?
-My friend is at a restaurant?

Did you finish your lunch?
Have you finished your lunch?

i went to boracay last month.
I have visited boracay 8 times

I will love you forever
I am going to love you forever.

I can speak english
I am able to speak english

All of the above are OK. You need to add a few capital letters.

Whats the difference between say and tell?
smart to intelligent
nice to good

Did you look these up in your dictionary?

Best wishes, Clive

a/an + saxon genitive

Anxiety — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:43:06 GMT

1. Can somebody explain me why I can write "a child is a God's gift" while "the dog was a Peter's gift" is wrong ?

Isn't "God" (if written with the capital letter) a proper noun as well?

2: Moreover, as for the undefined article before the saxone genitive, please what's the difference between:

"a cousin of Peter" (is it correct?)

"a cousin of Peter's" (does it mean: a cousin of Peter's cousins??)

"one of Peter's cousins" (a cousin among some of Peter's cousins??)

Thanx

Re: On or of

Demetrius — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:41:51 GMT

Rex wrote:
Demetrius

You touched on the topic of the capitalization and the article.
Let us talk about a large company. You and I will find a lot of employees who are keen on what the management is doing.

(4) There are many people to keep track of the company's activities.
Would you insist to write the word '' Company's '' here?

Sorry, I think I have misled you. I didn't mean to imply that you must capitalize wherever you use the definite article. You only capitalize proper nouns - the names of people, places or things. In your example sentence, " the company's" is not capitalized, because although it is a particular company, it is not the name of a particular company. If you were to write "...the Widget Company's activities", then you would capitalize.

By the way, your question should be "Would you insist on writing the word "Company's" here?"

Rex wrote:

You went on describing the difference between keeping the article and omitting the article. It is very interesting, as far as I am concerned.

You said the word 'government' needs to capitalize and needs the article if it is to be a noun. Why is that? Forget the word 'government' and write the word 'company'.

It's a subtle point. The truth is that it depends on context, and I have over-simplified by taking the context to be the usual one. When we refer to "the Government", we are normally referring not only to a particular government but to the name of that government. So we capitalize it. When we refer to "the company", we usually mean a particular company but not the name of that company. For example, the name of my government is "the British Government", and unless there was an ambiguity as to which government I meant, I would write it as "the Government". It is a usage convention. I am promoting the noun to the status of a proper noun as a special case.

However, there are exceptions. If it is clear from context that "the company" always refers to one particular company, and my audience understands this, it is permissible for me to write "the Company's activities", because I am now indicating that I am referring to the name of that company. This might happen in a legal document, or in other special cases. For example, in eighteenth-century British diplomatic circles, the British East India Company was often referred to simply as "the Company".

Rex wrote:

If you just write the word 'company' , you don't have to capitalize. By the same token the word 'government' doesn't need to be capitalize. Of course organizations like '' FAO '' OR ''UNIDO '' needs the capital letters. We don't write 'unido' or 'fao'.

5. Our employees are very interested in the company's activities.
6. Our employees are very interested in the activities of the comapny.

[ We are strictly speaking about a company and its employees here.]

What you say is correct, but I hope I have clarified my point now.

Rex wrote:

[I would like to know whether you are British or American. Sometimes BrE and AmE have differnt ways of looking at grammatical aspects. That is why I would like to know your vantage point. ; however, I respect the fact that you don't have any obligation to disclose those facts to me.]

I am English, and my native tongue is British English.

Re: On or of

Rex — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:13:00 GMT

Demetrius

You gave me a very interesting answer and pushed me to delve into my grammars.

Let us say talk about a watchdog.

They are keeping a prying eye on the activities of governments/organizations.

That is why I thought the preposition 'on' is the best choice. Our focus is on activities. You thought the prepostion 'of' is the best choice!

You touched on the topic of the capitalization and the article.
Let us talk about a large company. You and I will find a lot of employees who are keen on what the management is doing.

(4) There are many people to keep track of the company's activities.
      Would you insist to write the word '' Company's '' here?

You went on describing the difference between keeping the article and omitting the article. It is very interesting, as far as I am concerned.

You said the word 'government' needs to capitalize and needs the article if it is to be a noun. Why is that? Forget the word 'government' and write the word 'company'.

If you just write the word 'company' , you don't have to capitalize. By the same token the word 'government' doesn't need to be capitalize. Of course organizations like '' FAO '' OR   ''UNIDO '' needs the capital letters. We don't write 'unido' or 'fao'.

5. Our employees are very interested in the company's activities.
6. Our employees are very interested in the activities of the comapny.

[ We are strictly speaking about a company and its employees here.]

[I would like to know whether you are British or American. Sometimes BrE and AmE have differnt ways of looking at grammatical aspects. That is why I would like to know your vantage point. ; however, I respect the fact that you don't have any obligation to disclose those facts to me.]

Re: i saw you eat or i saw you eating

Globetrotter — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:48:12 GMT

Thanks for your answers.
Sorry for the capital letters, but I can't really see the problem. I mean, it's no English lesson now.
I'll try to make it correct now

So you said that there was a difference between them. Can anybody confirm that? And is it noticed or is it seen as "unnatural" to use the wrong form or would nobody realize?

regards

Re: Grammar doubts (to MrP)

sextus — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:22:54 GMT

Hi MrP. Many thanks for your suggestions, some of which were excellent (such as âhelp to dispel the confusionâ). I have some questions about the suggestions and I added other doubts.

1) You suggested: âThe analysis of these issues is important because by clearing them up we will gain a better understanding of the nature of the Pyrrhonistâs ethical stance, which in my view has been misinterpreted in several points. We will then be able to assess its coherence.â

Given my purposes, I think it is better to say: âThe analysis of these issues is important because by clearing them up we will gain a better understanding of the nature of the Pyrrhonistâs ethical stance â which in my view has been misinterpreted in several pointsâ, and this, in turn, will allow us to assess its coherence.â
By the way, is it clear that âitsâ refers to âPyrrhonistâs ethical stanceâ?

2) âreveals itself asâ: not quite ok; âseemsâ, âappears to beâ.

3) âFirst, it is not true that all the members of a group such as a family or a community must always obey the same norms, or that they will necessarily share the same abilities.â

You suggested the sentence above. I thought of the following one, because I want to preserve the idea that it is a fact, in order to support the argument Iâm displaying in the part of the article in question:
âFor, first, it is a fact that the members of a group, such as a family or a community, do not always obey the same norms, and that they hardly ever have the same abilitiesâ.

4) Perhaps: âSome peculiar interpretations of this passage have been put forward. It has been claimed that Sextus is here being ironic or flippant, and even that this final chapter of PH is not by Sextus. I cannot find anything in PH iii 280â281 to support such bizarre interpretations.â
Does flippant work? Iâm not sure what the intention of dilettante is!

The point is that one guy says on a page that Sextus is being ironic, and five pages later he adds that Sextus says what he says in the passage in question âpar dilletantismeâ (the guy is French).

5) âThere are three passages which, to a greater or lesser extent, seem to confirm that in the event that ataraxia in matters of belief were abandoned as an end or stopped accompanying suspension, the Skeptics would not consider a vital part of their outlook to be lost.â

Is âto a greater or lesser extentâ correct? Thereâs an expression in Spanish, and Iâm not sure whether the expression above is real English.

6) This is a new thing I added to the paper. And thereâs a translation from the Greek.

âThe second text is AM i 6, where, as was noted before (see n3), there is no mention of the Skepticâs quest for unperturbedness in the story of the Pyrrhonistâs philosophical journey. The passage is the following:
with respect to the studies the Skeptics experienced something almost like what they experienced with respect to the whole of philosophy. For just as they approached the latter with the desire of reaching the truth, but, when confronted with an equipollent conflict and the anomaly of things, they suspended judgment, so too with respect to the studies, when they set out on their acquisition seeking to learn the truth here as well and discovering equal aporias, they did not hide .
I find this omission at the very least suggestive, since if the search for ajtaraxiva were inherent in Pyrrhonism, one would certainly expect Sextus to mention it in the present passage. Perhaps this is due to a change of viewpoint from PH and AD to AM, which is generally considered to be the latest of Sextusâ surviving works. Or perhaps it is only due to the fact that in AM Sextus is concerned neither to give a detailed account of Pyrrhonism, as he is in the first book of PH, nor to expound the Skepticâs attack on ethics, as he is in the last chapters of PH iii and in AD v. Be that as it may, what is undeniable is the fact that in the brief story told at AM i 6 unperturbedness plays no part, whereas we do find here the most distinctive aspects of Pyrrhonism: the search for the truth, the irregularity of things, the conflict among equipollent positions, insoluble aporias, the adoption of suspension of judgment.â

By the way, I think that âaporiaâ exists in English, even if it is commonly used. Am I right?

7) âIf I understand this passage correctly, the difference between the Skeptics and Arcesilaus with respect to the ends they pursue is no reason not to consider him a Skeptic; on the contrary, this difference is referred to while enumerating the reasons why the Skepticsâ and Arcesilausâ attitudes are almost the same. (â¦) In any case, for my present purposes what must be emphasized is again the fact that Arcesilausâ not taking unperturbedness as a part of his end does not seem to constitute in Sextusâ eyes a motive for denying that he adopts the Pyrrhonean attitude. Rather, the only reason for this denial appears to be, as has already been noted, Arcesilausâ assertion that suspension is good and assent bad. But even if we accept that both elements indicate that Arcesilaus is not a Skeptic, we cannot deny that PH i 25 provides strong support for the view that the quest for ataraxia in matters of opinion is not essential to Pyrrhonism, and that AM i 6 at least suggests that this is the case.â

This is almost the complete passage of a text you corrected. I changed some things using what you said. But I added other sentences.

8) Finally, I changed the title to this: âThe Pyrrhonistâs ataraxia and philanthropia: On the Character and Coherence of Sextus Empiricusâ Skepticismâ.

Does this sound ok? (By the way, yes, ataraxia and philanthropia are in Greek). Also, can you remember which type of words go in capital letters in titles in English? (Adjectives, nouns, verbsâ¦?)

Thanks and cheers.

Sextus

English Grammar doubts

sextus — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:29:43 GMT

Hello MrP, how are you? I got the paper back with comments by a referee. So I changed a few things and I have some doubts:

1) âThe Pyrrhonistâs ataraxia and philanthropia: On the Aim and Character of Sextus Empiricusâ Skepticism.â
Last time you told me that âendâ was ambiguous, so I replaced it by âaimâ. Also, is it ok to use capital letters after the colon?

2) âThe analysis of these issues is important because by clearing them up we will gain a better understanding of the nature of the Pyrrhonistâs ethical stance, which in my view has been misinterpreted in several points, and will be able to assess its coherence.â

3) âIn the last section, after summarizing the main results obtained in the previous discussions, I shall state more clearly what I consider to be the defining features of Pyrrhonism and respond to some objections that may be raised against my stance.â
Is it ok to say âan objection raised againstâ¦â?

4) âThis idea appears to be explicitly stated in PH iii at the end of the discussion of whether there is anything good, bad or indifferent by nature.â
Is it grammatically correct to say âin PH iii at the end ofâ?

5) âIn this section I shall consider some objections raised to Sextusâ description of the Pyrrhonistâs personal experience and to his intention to persuade others to adopt Skepticism by means of this description. This will permit us to get a more accurate picture of the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its plausibility.â

6) âJohn thinks thatâ¦. Mary, for her part, finds it hard to believe that the Skeptic is able to achieve happiness, since the state of unperturbedness reveals itself as deeply boring and unappealing, and she even doubts that the attainment of this mental state is psychologically possibleâ
Are âfor her partâ and âreveals itselfâ correct?

7) âI therefore think there are no grounds for considering Sextusâ account ridiculous or false, unless one believes that one is entitled to generalize oneâs own experience, and then to dismiss a personâs report of his experience when it is radically different.â
Is it ok to put a comma before âandâ?

8) âIf I understand this passage correctly, the difference between the Skeptic and Arcesilaus with respect to the end they pursue gives no motive for not considering him a Skeptic. Rather, the only reason for this denial appears to be, as already noted, Arcesilausâ assertion that suspension is good and assent bad. But even if we grant that it is both elements which determine that Arcesilaus is not a Skeptic, it is clear thatâ¦â

9) âOf course, this also shows that Pyrrhonism must not be considered an intrinsically individualistic stance either, as Floridi 2002, 32 thinks.â
Is it clear that Floridi thinks that Pyrrhonism is intrinsically individualistic?

10) âFor, first, it is a fact that not all the members of a group, such as a family or a community, always obey the same norms and that they hardly ever have the same abilities.â
I donât feel comfortable with this way of saying it.

11) âI hope that the previous account dissipates the confusion about what is intrinsic to the Pyrrhonistâs ethical outlook, and that it shows that his quest for ajtaraxiva and his filanqrwpiva do not threaten or compromise the coherence of his Skepticism.â

12) âI hope to have established that the Pyrrhonistâs philanthropic and therapeutic practice is not essential to his philosophy, since the Skeptics are not inevitably philanthropic and those who happen to be so could perfectly well stop acting and feeling in a philanthropic way and become more individualistic and uncaring, without this being an obstacle to their being full-blown Skeptics.â

13) âTo conclude, I wish to take account of two objections that may be raised to my view. In the first place, it could be argued that the emphasis I put on the distinction between defining and non-defining characteristics of Pyrrhonism is itself foreign to the Pyrrhonean spirit, since the Skeptic would refrain from theorizing about the real nature of his outlook. However, I think this objection overlooks two facts. First, the first book of PH is devoted to an account of the Skeptical attitude. There Sextus carefully defines and describes the skeptsis, and emphasizes the differences between Pyrrhonism and its neighboring philosophies. Of course, this account should be interpreted as no more than a report of how things appear to Sextus at the moment he is describing them, but this does not make it less true that he gives a careful explanation of the nature of his Skepticism and makes it clear what his stance is not. Secondly, even if one accepted that from the Skepticâs viewpoint this distinction is completely pointless, I do not think this prevents an interpreter interested in comprehending the Pyrrhonean outlook from trying to determine what defines it.â

14) âThough Bett does not think that Sextusâ stance can be taken as a form of realism according to his own conception of reality, he does maintain that the Skeptic of AD v asserts that things are good and bad in relation to specific persons and situations.â
Is it clear that âhisâ refers to âSextusâ and that âheâ refers to âBettâ?

15) âSome peculiar interpretations of this passage have been put forward. It has been claimed that here Sextus is being ironic and a dilettante, and even that this final chapter of PH is not by Sextus. I cannot find anything in PH iii 280â281 that supports such bizarre interpretations.â
Can I use âironicâ and then âa dilettanteâ, that is, an adjective and then a noun?

Thanks,

Sextus