Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Common errors' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Common errors'

Re: Confused with verbs

Goodman — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:30:18 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Hi, I usually edit some of the stuff my coworkers write around here, I believe I have good knowledge of what I'm doing but now I doubt it because of a document I'm reading right now...

This is how it reads (in many paragraphs):

"It is recommended that the agency review and revise the language on the website..."

My question is about the verbs in italics, I believe that since I'm talking about an agency it should be "reviews and revises"; when I brought this up to my supervisor she said no, because agency is singular, so the verb doesn't have a 's', well, I believe I'm right but as I said before I have doubts now, any help out there?

Thank you!

The experts already answered and commented on your question. Please allow me to throw in my two cents. This is a quite common error in ELS level learners because that was how they were taught on basic grammar. Actually, there is a bunch of verbs that fall into the subjunctive category which overrides the 3rd person singular rules. i.e.

I demand that everyone respect the rulesâ¦

I recommend that everyone be on timeâ¦

I advise that she take the warning seriously (no âsâ)

We insist that he be on time (not is to be)

_{The present subjunctive is most familiar to us in formulaic expressions such as God help him, be that as it may, come what may, and suffice it to say. It also occurs in that clauses used to state commands or to express intentions or necessity}

_{We insist that he do the job properly.}

_{The committee proposes that she be appointed treasurer immediately. (notice the main sentence is using the 3rd person/ singular while the clause was not!)}

_{It is essential that we be informed of your plans. Hope that helps...}

Re: First come, first served.

Philip — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:29:57 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
It it is wrongly written as 'First come, first serve', then I think it means since you come first, you have to serve the guest/s first.

That might be what it would mean, but to my knowledge that expression with that meaning does not exist. It is simply a common error.

Re: Married to/with

Kooyeen — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:13:09 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
It's a very common error among Spanish speakers to say get married with to mean casarse con. It's a direct translation of with = con

Hi,
I think it might be a common mistake among Italians too, since we say "I'm married with" --> "Sono sposato con"... I just don't make that mistake because I usually check every expression in a dictionary before using it, so I saw it's "married to". However I didn't know much about "married with", I learned about it here.

Re: Inferior dialects?

Randy_Tam — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:55:40 GMT

O, I thought you were, as your quote is in Chinese.

Yes, L(x) is a function indicating whether a language is 'native' or 'foreign' to a person. It is not restricted to Language Acquisition though, as it is widely used in such topics as Language Teaching (see for example, Eric Hawkin's <Awareness of Language>, Psycholinguistics (Fodor's <Language of Thought>... If I remember the name aright), Applied Linguistics (eg. Andrew Radford et al., <Linguistics: an Introduction>.

I am not a specialist in the development of Sino languages though. I am only taking Mandarin as a complusory second language credit course, my L1 being Cantonese Chinese, now considered a 'dialect' for no justifiable reasons, as there has never been a clear distinction drawn between a 'dialect' and a 'language': do the 2 not share the very same traits of a 'language' (a consistent grammar embedded so that an L1 speaker can tell whether an expression is acceptable in his language)? I feel really sorry for my professor, whose views as to a 'language' seem to me simply ignoring the dynamic nature of language. According to her (and the course book), Putonghua was 'designed and standardized (by a committee of linguists... sadly enough), where the lexicon and pronunciations are fabricated according to the dialects spoken around the northern provinces, to be the common language of the entire Chinese population'. Anything that is not in the prescribed list (of words, of the so - called 'syntax', and of pronunciation) is considered 'wrong', the list's constantly changing and being enlarged notwithstanding (direct sources are not available, as I am, as always, but a small potato). The matter on which I want to draw you attention is not this bare matter of fact, but the reason why the list requires constant change.

Given the assumption that the government policy of 'linguistic genocide' (as my French teacher, who used to teach in China and can speak Putonghua even better than most of my classmates, calls that prescription and its making compulsory Putonghua learning in primary schools) is effective, the initial linguistic state of the country ought to be homogeneous, ie. people speaking the 'very same language' at a 'very same standard'... um... to take an analogy from English, if a British calls a person a 'chap', given that policy exists among English speaking countries, you would expect an American, instead of calling a person a 'guy', a 'noob', or a 'pal', to say 'chap' as well. This might well have worked perfectly if 1: people were brainless and non - innovative such that they don't know to invent new expressions or words. 2. if the community (in this case, China) were close against contact with other communities. But neither is true of China (although, from a racist point of view, one may talk of '*** noobs' as he talks of 'frogs'... no puns here, again... just to name an example). As a language is used in daily discourse, deviations related to 1. the phonemic form 2. syntactic constructions 3. pragmatic uses 4. stylistic variations 5. logical interpretations and the like, make language change inevitable. I quote again the examples I came across earlier: 1. the use of 'er' being more flexible these days (as more non - L1 speakers of Putonghua now communicate in that language, whereas the use of 'er' is simply insane in their native language, Cantonese for example) 2. the more flexible use of the '5th tone' (probably brought about by intercourse between Mainlander Chinese and Taiwanese Chinese) 3. words borrowed from other Chinese 'dialects'. All these blur, if not make impossible, the precise definition of the shape of a language. It is for this reason that even though Putonghua was intended as a prescribed language for the entire population, speech variations nevertheless take place (Though asserted as 'wrongs', Chinese linguists have devoted much effort in addressing 'common errors' of a particular group of speaker, a prelude to 'language variations') and eventually prevail over such prescriptions.

Re: Could /could not care less

just the truth — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:15:51 GMT

OK - which is correct? I hear both used.

I could care less.
I couldn't care less.

I am assuming that the second one is correct in indicating a lack of concern.

============

JTT: Both are correct, Robin and both mean, more or less, the same thing. While this might seem odd at first blush, you have to remember that language says what people intend, not what some wag believes.

Here's one such wag, Paul Brians. He's quite good at making errors himself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Common Errors in English - Paul Brians

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html

ClichÃ©s are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant âit would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at allâ is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common âI could care less.â Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so itâs pointless to argue that the newer version is âironic.â People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JTT: Read his first sentence, above, a oft repeated canard. {Why can't these prescriptivists think for themselves?}

How is it possible for an idiom to become meaningless through overuse? There are of course countless idioms that have become meaningless to speakers of modern English through underuse.

Next, 'caring some' is not what those who seek solace want. "I could care less, but your problem doesn't rate very high at all on my list" hardly marks one as a caring person.

If we were to look at all the idioms/idiomatic phrases of English and test them for their logic, many would fail. But language has its own logic.

Paul Brians is out to lunch on his analysis. In point of fact, it is no analysis at all. "I could care less" is perfectly grammatical and it has full meaning within language. There's nothing more that's required.

Re: Common errors or good writing?

CalifJim — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:44:23 GMT

While not appropriate for very formal use, these are correct and widely used.

"what" in place of "which" is extremely common because the two are so similar in meaning.

"go to" for "attend" is just a more colloquial expression -- also extremely common.

"ic" is correct in "Is that sarcastic?", as is "sarcasm".

That is sarcastic = That is a sarcastic remark.

Correcting English mistakes, Approaches to Teaching and Learning English

Claudius — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:47:17 GMT

Hello everybody,

I will be most thankful and will appreciate very much, if one of you could help me in correcting the below exchanges
and advice to the Tasks below; Please note, I will be grateful to receive corrected versions in simple termes and grammartical explanation to the corrections.

Since I am preparing for the CELTA Cambridge Certficate in Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages course here in Vienna, Austria. I am seeking for profession advice in Internet and also searching for Books in the following:

A. English grammar
B. Common Errors in English Laungage Usage.
C. English Drafting and Editing

To be corrected:
____________________________________________

1. "I`d like some informations about your courses."
"Certainly, here`s our brochure."

Correction:
Explanation in in simple terms:
____________________________________________

2. âHave you got any money?â
âYes, Iâve been to the bank yesterdayâ

Correction:
Explanation in in simple terms:
____________________________________________

3. âWhy donât you give up smoking?â
âIâve tried, but I just canât give up it.â

Correction:
Explanation in in simple terms:
____________________________________________

4. âWhy didnât you answer the phone?â
âBecause I had a bath.â

Correction:
Explanation in in simple terms:
____________________________________________

Approaches to Teaching and Learning English:

1. Imagine that you are teaching a multilingual group of 12 adult learners at elementary level.

2. What problems might your students have in understanding these sentences:

Iâve got: a headache
: a sore throat
: a cough

3. What problems might they have in pronouncing them?

4. Outline some ideas on how you could teach these expressions.

5. Now think of your own experience as a learner of languages at school or elsewhere.
What conclusions would you draw from your experience as regards what makes a good language lesson?

6. Write at least 100 words in the space below:

_____________________________________

Claudius Taruvinga-Mtasa
E-Mail: claudius.taruvinga-mtasa@chello.at
Vienna. Austria/Europe.
_____________________________________

Re: Affect/effect

buggah — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:35:23 GMT

"There are four distinct words here. When "affect" is accented on the final syllable (a-FECT), it is a verb meaning "have an influence on": "The million-dollar donation from the industrialist did not affect my vote against the Clean Air Act." A much rarer meaning is indicated when the word is accented on the first syllable (AFF-ect), meaning "emotion." In this case the word is used mostly by psychiatrists and social scientists-- people who normally know how to spell it. The real problem arises when people confuse the first spelling with the second: "effect." This too can be two different words. The more common one is a noun: "When I left the stove on, the effect was that the house filled with smoke." When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it. The less common is a verb meaning "to create": "I'm trying to effect a change in the way we purchase widgets." No wonder people are confused. Note especially that the proper expression is not "take affect" but "take effect"--become effective. Hey, nobody ever said English was logical: just memorize it and get on with your life."

From Common Errors in English.