Search results for 'tag:English vocabulary tag:Nouns' matching tags 'English vocabulary' and 'Nouns'

Re: Some problems with plural noun?

Avangi — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:39:27 GMT

Hi h & k, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS ! ! ! Thanks for joining us.

I guess we'd consider as irregular plurals, things like deer, deer; man, men; child, children; hoof, hooves.

"Vocabulary" can be either countable or uncountable. His English vocabulary comprises only a hundred words, but he has extensive vocabularies in French and German.

Improving vocabulary is a major goal of the new reading program.

Best wishes, - A.

New Word Definition With 10 Scentences......

Sarrows — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:40:34 GMT

As long as I am very poor in English vocabulary, I thought it would be good to learn new vocabularies through games.

Let us see if you like it or not?

The game start like this, New Word Will Be Added here WITH it's defintion, each member follows should put the word in a sentence or small paragraph.
The 10th member should give a new word with its definition, and the other members puts it in a sentence or small paragraph and so on....

What do you think?

I will start:

Hive ( Noun )
1.
a: a container for housing honeybees.
b: the usually aboveground nest of bees.
2.a colony of bees.
3.a place swarming with activity.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/871/30001329.JPG

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: base for this usage

Clive — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:55:37 GMT

Hi,

I hesitate to discuss the uses of nouns in such a very theoretical way. I'd just prefer to say that English vocabulary seems to me to be very flexible, and that a very great deal depends on the context.

So, are you saying virtually any word can be used differently (ie. different than typical definitions would indicate) if used grammatically in a general term?

Did I say that? Let's try. horse One horse. Two horses. A horse has four legs. The horse is a noble animal. English people don't like to eat horse. These usages are all fine.

Despite your modesty, you seem to have quitea good understanding of this. Are there any sample sentences that you are not sure of?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:56 GMT

Hello Mav

My understanding about the historical development of the English language is like this:

English basically belongs to Teutonic languages along with German, Dutch, and Scandinavian languages. The oldest form of English (Old English/Anglo-Saxon) had been quite similar to present day German. The Old English had a complicated grammar system like noun cases such as present day German has. But during 9-11 centuries many Scandinavians came to Britain as invaders and got inter-married with the native Anglo-Saxons. The language (Old Norse) the invading Scandinavians spoke had also a complicated grammar system somehow different from Old English. The children born between Old Norse speaking fathers and Old English speaking mothers got puzzled at a question; which language should they speak, father's language or mother's language? Their choice was the easiest way: mix the two languages and simplify the grammar, just like making a kind of pidgin language. This pidginized mixture of Old English and Old Norse developed into Middle English in 10-14 centuries, the time when England was ruled by French nobles who were utterly unconcerned about what language the people of lower classes were speaking. I think the main frame of present day English has its origin in this Middle English, The English vocabulary has been increased by borrowing the words from French and Latin. But most of the words English speakers are using in everyday speech are either Old English or Old Norse in origin.

If you learn Swedish (one of the present day form of Old Norse), you will be surprised at the close similarities between English and Swedish in vocabulary, above all in grammar. To my ears English and Swedish are like two regional dialects of one language.

paco