Search results for 'tag:English grammar tag:Vocabulary' matching tags 'English grammar' and 'Vocabulary'

Re: The new EF is not as good as it was before, I feel

Pter — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:50:31 GMT

Yes, this also happens to me. I have been receiving notifications from Vocabulary and Idioms, Speech and Pronunciation, but never from General English Grammar.

Re: the stated/written amount of money to you

bernice.farrugia — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:57:28 GMT

Technically 'written' would be incorrect since it suggests using your hand to write something out. 'Stated' fits in perfectly.

Bernice

Re: The legend/folklore of the White Snake

bernice.farrugia — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:48:53 GMT

A legend is a story which is normally told by older generations to younger ones...and very often there is an element of truth to it, even though there would be no real proof.

Folklore refers more to a set of traditions which are found within a particular group of people.

So it could be said (as clarification) that the term FOLKLORE is more generic, whereas LEGEND is more specific.

Bernice

Re: teaching

Seonaid — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:04:16 GMT

Hello,

I'd recommend 'Learning Teaching' by Jim Scrivener. This is one which is recommended during CELTA courses and is a nice introduction.

There is also a series of books called 'How to teach ..'. For example, I liked 'How to teach Grammar' by Scott Thornbury, and the series includes 'How to teach Vocabulary', 'How to teach Writing' and so on.

Decent coursebooks such as the Headway series also have quite a lot of good ideas in the teachers' books, which can be helpful when you're starting.

I do recommend a CELTA though if you can manage it in the future, it's really useful to get such a lot of feedback on your teaching.

If you need any help with your grammar (if you are a native speaker, and so perhaps not completely au fait with the ins and outs of English grammar) I'd recommend 'Grammar for English language Teachers' by Martin Parott, and 'Practical English Usage' by Michael Swan.

Best wishes,

Seonaid

Re: this morning

Cool Breeze — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:07:58 GMT

Philip wrote:

I concur with this excellent analysis. [There's nothing to apologize about for your "Helsinki English", CB.]

Thank you for your kind words, Philip. However, I do think I don't really deserve the excellent-grasp-of-English icon that I have because my vocabulary isn't nearly as large as that of a native speaker. Quite honestly, I don't think some of the natives that have this icon deserve it, either, because there are surprising gaps in their knowledge of English grammar.

A good expert is one whose opinions are not based solely on what his high school teachers taught him or what he learned at university. A wider knowledge of English and linguistic experience from various sources combined with a broad and understanding mind are conducive to balanced views on usage and correctness. Some of the members I have a lot of respect for don't visit these forums very often. One of the very best that seem to have forsaken us is J Lewis, who last logged in last July.

Cheers
CB

Re: Which of the following dictionaries would you recommend?...

Kooyeen — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:40:35 GMT

Hi,
my English is not good at all, really, but I'm improving. If you want to know how I improved and how I'm improving, then... let's just say I used to read some stuff in Practical English Usage by Michael Swan and English Grammar in Use (Cambridge University Press), but then I stopped relying on grammar books. They are oversimplified, confusing, and often too prescriptive, even those that claim to follow a descriptive approach. So I can't recommend any grammar, because I have yet to find a good grammar, and I think I don't really need one anymore. I don't think a bunch of rules to keep in mind is the key to fluency. However, I think the grammars by Cambridge University Press are acceptable, to get started.
Then I learn a lot in this forum, asking, writing, reading natives' answers. Dictionaries help me a lot too. I use the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and the Merriam-Webster, all online versions. I use the Merriam-Webster mainly for pronunciations, the others help me with collocations, patterns and examples.
American Accent Training by Ann Cook helped me improve my listening skills. The problem is that I don't read much, so my vocabulary is extremelly limited, and therefore this limits my listening skills too. I hope I'll soon be good enough to rely mainly on spoken English (listening), which I believe is the best source of reliable English for ESL students.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:05:04 GMT

Forbes wrote:
Cool Breeze, your English is faultless!

I think that Mr P has hit the nail on the head. In English the complexity resides in the syntax. Many say that English has no "grammar" because you do not need to grapple with conjugations and declensions, but of course if it had no grammar it would just be soup.

I have been to Thailand many times. I have made a not very sucessful attempt to learn Thai, which is even more analytical than English.

Forbes, in one respect I am more British than you: I have also been to Thailand many times but have never bothered to try and learn the language. I have noticed that they never put an English noun in the plural and that there are some other local peculiarities.

MrP's comment about syntax makes sense to me as well.

Thank you for your comment regarding my English. I wish it were faultless! I think I'm just fairly good at fooling people into thinking it is better than it actually is. I achieve this by using mainly words and expressions I am familiar with, in other words, I use English I have seen or heard before. However, occasionally I step aside from the well-trodden path either inadvertently or on purpose because I feel imprisoned by the obligation or compulsion to sound 'natural'. Maybe I'm something of a nonconformist. For example, I know full well that native speakers like to place only in the same position as the adverbs of frequency (often, always, never etc.). I quite often place it elsewhere...

My word power in Finnish is from another planet compared with my English vocabulary. I would never dare to proofread a legal document written in English, for example. But since I don't make many mistakes in what I consider English grammar and I have a good ear that helps me avoid doubtful expressions, I often make an unwarrantedly favourable impression on the reader.

Cheers
CB

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: Language-related misunderstandings

Cool Breeze — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:19:03 GMT

I took a summer job in England to learn English after I had graduated from school. My duties included serving drinks from the hotel pub to people who preferred to have their drinks in the lounges next to Reception. I had been there just a few days and was getting accustomed to many things that differed from what I was used to. You might call it cultural acclimatisation.

I was on duty one afternoon when a British couple sitting in the TV lounge wanted drinks. Hearing a lot of British accents in a short time hadn't made it at all easier for me to understand different varieties of English from all over the British Isles. I thought the man wanted a gin and ale, and I don't remember what his wife ordered. A gin and ale seemed like a rather strange drink to me but it didn't bother me for long. These people cooked their food in the most mysterious ways and I had no shower in my bathroom, just a bath tub, so who was I to judge their drinks!

The Spanish bartender, Manuel, who had been in England longer than me (seven months), wondered about the gin and ale, but gave it to me. When I took the drinks into the lounge it turned out that the man had ordered ginger ale, not gin and ale. I had never heard the word because in Finland no one drinks ginger ale. And I was too young to know about all kinds of drinks anyway.

Of course I offered to take the gin and ale back to the pub but the man said he was actually thirsty and would gladly drink the gin if I brought him a tonic water for a mixer. I did that on the house.

Other than this misunderstanding, I did just fine on the job. I had a good grasp of English grammar but the various accents caused me some problems. And of course my vocabulary could have been larger when I began working.

Re: Could anonimity be useful?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:45:34 GMT

Hi, everybody!

Maybe I should have started with "well," but I can ensure you that I'm the original poster, while this guy

Anonymous wrote:

Well, I have a half-finished game of noughts and crosses tattooed on my forehead. If you do too, then I guess...

is not (but I found his/her post amusing! )

First, I'd like to thank those who have really answered my question. The topic was not "Guess who I am" but to what extent anomimity in answering questions can be useful both to the questioner (will s/he tend to rely less on the answer?) and to the community (could it avoid useless quarrels?).

Pucca wrote:

And going back to the topic..an anonimous post would be helpful if you want to ask something but you don't want others to see who is asking so.

Let me disagree with you. If the community can se who is asking a certain question, the answer will probably be better tailored to specific needs and interests. For instance, if Kooyeen (by the way, sorry for misspelling your nick! ) posts a question about present perfect, he will probably receive more answers related to AmE than I would, because everybody knows that "he's learning American English"!

My point was exactly the opposite: while anonimity is NEVER useful in asking, it could be in answering.

Kooyeen wrote:
Ok, point no.1: my English is not good at all, I'm learning and I ask questions, but I also try to answer to other posts. I do it mainly because I think it helps me try to express myself. Plus, answering questions, I can share what I know, and in that way if I have learned something wrong, I can easily get corrected. And trying to answer questions I often end up asking, instead.

This is a very good point.

Kooyeen wrote:
Point no.3: as I already said in some thread, I always and only rely on native speakers. I don't even trust proficient members or advanced learners. Only natives. This doesn't mean I don't want their opinions or that I think their English is not good. I just think that in every thread, in order to be considered "resolved", there have to be some native's replies. This comes from the way I see grammar, that in my opinion should only be "descriptive".

I completely agree. I've studied English grammar extensively, and although I still make too many mistakes, I'm not concerned about them. Whenever I have a doubt on grammar and vocabulary, I always search by myself.

What I really, really lack is the feeling for what would be the natural way to express a complex idea, and this is whay I prefer receiving answers from natives. I don't want to resemble one of those dusty, ancient grammar books you can find in a library!

Pucca wrote:
I have another suggestion about that person! I clicked on "not readed", and saw a name which was pretty similar, I started to read his posts and..Bingo! I thnk it's him! He posted a paragraph and Philip didn't find any mistakes..so, in conclusion, that Anon wasn't you either MrP!

Sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree!