Search results for 'tag:Gerunds tag:Translation' matching tags 'Gerunds' and 'Translation'

Mistakes made by Chinese Learners

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:30:26 GMT

Hi everyone

I just wondered if anyone could help - I have to write a profile of a chinese learner of English (completely made up). In it I must put any difficulties that the learner has in learning English as an L2. I have got so far:

Intonation transfer from L1 may cause them to be perceived as rude/inconsiderate, more serious transfer may affect comprehensiveness.
No inflections in L1 - tenses difficult to learn in L2 as L1 has no true tenses and concept of time is expressed by adverbs/implicit or contextual assumptions.
Difficulty distinguishing [r] & - Does anyone know why this is as I can't find a reason?!!
Prepositions such as 'on', 'in' & 'at' have one chinese translation in many contexts, 'zai' - may be confused resulting in phrases such as 'on Taiwan' instead of 'in Taiwan'.
Use of awkward gerunds e.g. 'no noising', excessive use of verbs ending in 'ing' e.g. 'do not climbing', confusion of 'ed' & 'ing' verbs e.g. 'i am bored' vs 'i am boring' --- all of these errors occur because verbs are not conjugated in chinese, for tense or pronoun.
No equivalent word for 'the' so may be used excessively when not needed e.g. 'The China' or missed out when needed. May also be confused with 'a'/'an'.
Confusion over countable and uncountable nouns, use of 'how much?' vs 'how many?' - leads to phrases such as 'I want a soup' & 'a lot of shoe'. This is due to there not being plurals in chinese - no inflections.

Switching between 'he' & 'she' - Does anyone know why this is?

If anyone can think of anymore it would be greatly appreciated or if anyone knows the answers to my questions about gender switching and distinguishing [r] & this would also help a lot!!

Thank you in advance.

Shannon

Re: I'mma

Delmobile — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:16:17 GMT

As in Clive's colorful example, it definitely indicates the future, and usually the immediate future at that. Perhaps a better translation would be "I'm about to." And I believe it's more usually paired with --- is it simple present? -- than the gerund, although nobody's exactly counting syllables.

I'm a go home now.
I'm a buy me a new coat.
I'm a slap you upside your head...

etc.

Re: Gerund=past vs Infinitive=present or future

Goodman — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:57:20 GMT

Miche wrote:
Hi, JT.
I can see you don't like rules much and I agree with you. Rules are too restrictive, hamper one's "feeling" the language and deprive him/her of the pleasure of speaking the language. That is a major problem with English learners in my country - they can recite mile-long lists of rules but they simply cannot speak. That's because they start thinking of rules whenever they try to say something. However, non-native speakers need guidelines to learn a language. Probably balance is the key.
As for Seyfihoca's "rule", I think it is very interesting. I've never thought about that. I'm just tempted - linguistically - to think of more such words. And if we are to elaborate on Seyfihoca's assumption, I think we can place Mr. M's four examples in a third group - verbs followed by other verbs that express simultaneous actions.

I agree with you with the highlighted points

I think there are several stages of English learning one must go through before he can express thoughts and idea fluently at will. Without question, stage 1 is to learn the grammar. We need to establish that as a foundation so that more learning can be built on it. At that stage, most learners rely on grammar and text books. Whatever the book says, it must be true and for the most part, it is. But once we pass beyond the basics, more and more questions will surface as our English knowledge gradually builds and accumulates on what we learned.

Next level is to build and expand our vocabulary. Many learners depend on the translation of dictionary in their mother tongue, which can be a problem because what the translated meaning means in their mother tongue often donât carry same weight in meaning in English, or even gone completely off âcourse. This can be frustrating as they learn from time to time they are using words incorrectly.

Speaking from experience, this is the time when one has to be ânaturalizedâ, or âimmersedâ in a constant English speaking environment with natives where he can learn speech patterns, sentence structure, how natural English sounds, and proper word usage; if he is motivated to leap to the next level. This process can take years to refine and many learners will develop a feeling of being stuck at the same spot. Unfortunately many learners are satisfied to just have learned these skills to get by and probably reluctant to the take the next level which is to develop an ability to think, to process logic and to make reasonable arguments in English. This will require all of our mental capacity and the acquired English skill we have learned, and stored in our brain, which is actually a lot harder than just talking about it.

Well I hope you guys donât think I am crazy!

Re: -ing VS -ion

CalifJim — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:31:26 GMT

aiming at the description of translating and translations ââas they manifest themselves in the world of our experienceââ

OK. Now I see more clearly what you're asking.

One of the meanings of the true noun is basically the same as the meaning of the gerund.
The other meaning of the true noun is different. It means the result of the activity -- the final product. In this meaning you may find a plural.

translating - the activity of making translations
translation(s) - the result of making translations - the translated document(s)
translation (in the singular only) - the activity of making translations

Constructing a bridge is a large project. (the activity of making a bridge)
Large suspension bridges are remarkable constructions. (the result of making bridges - the bridges themselves)

Defining a word is sometimes difficult. (the activity of producing a definition)
The dictionary contains the definition of that word. (the result of producing a definition - the written definition itself)

CJ

Re: -ing VS -ion

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:46:43 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
I'm assuming that you are talking about cases where both are used as nouns: a true noun (translation) and a gerund (translating)
.........

.........

Yes, that's exactly the answer I was seeking. Thank you!

Re: -ing VS -ion

CalifJim — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:05:53 GMT

I'm assuming that you are talking about cases where both are used as nouns: a true noun (translation) and a gerund (translating).

Whether it's a major or minor mistake to mix them depends on the verb from which the nouns are derived. Sometimes the meanings are very close; sometimes they are very different. Often the true noun takes "the" and "of", and the gerund does not.

The translation of Russian to English is very difficult.
Translating Russian to English is very difficult.

The construction of the bridge took five years.
Constructing the bridge took five years.

Fulton became famous for the invention of the steam boat.
Fulton became famous for inventing the steam boat.

CJ

Re: Gerund or Participle ?

Goodman — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:15:45 GMT

[

As a former ESL learner, I think my personal learning experience qualifies me to offer this perspective. I really donât think majority of the foreign English learners learn their grammar through substandard grammar books. I think the difference is in the interpretation and teaching method of the teacher, as well as the perception of the students that either steer the students on the right track or otherwise. I am still learning everyday from watching programs like Discovery and The History Channel to improve my speech pattern and apply it to my writing. Definitely learning and adapting to think in English helped. The problem with many foreign learners is that the thought composing process is done in their own language. The writing part is put through a translation process. The result often is a mixture of English grammar and their own which may sound quite stiff and unnatural. I can say this. Itâs not easy for foreigners to learn and master English. By that, I mean gaining full control of fluent written and spoken skills and avoiding making common mistakes. For many Asian learners itâs particularly difficult because their languages are not formed by alphabets, compounded by the lack or consistent exposure and contact with English speaking natives. For myself, spoken English and audio-visuals have a big impact on my written English. But thatâs just me and I believe each learner perceives and learns differently. This is the best forum I have come across in terms of the level of English experts and control of the forum. Well, every now and then, a couple of strays show up but thatâs inevitable. Thatâs my two cents.

Re: the first

paco2004 — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:07:09 GMT

Then what about these sentences, paco

What do you mean by "Then what about these sentences, paco?" Do you want to say you donât agree to what I wrote previously? I wrote just what CGEL and my another grammar book are saying. If you don't like to believe them, I donât mind it. What I would like to advise you is you had better understand that not all the sentences you can find online are correct English. There are many pages written in English but authored by non-native speakers. Furthermore, even native speakers made wrong sentences sometimes by mistake, sometimes with some intentions, and sometimes from ignorance. If you want to know correct usage through google, it would be better to narrow down your search to domains like "cnn.com" and "nytimes.com" whose reporters are obliged to be careful in writing, or "Gutenberg. org" in which authorized classics are digitized as e-books.

1- "It did not even enter the minds of most of our philosophers to doubt that the state of nature had existed, even though it is evident from reading the Holy Scriptures that the first man having received enlightenment and precepts directly from God was not himself in that state" (Discourse on Inequality 102-03).

As to the quote #1, I suspect the author might misquote the original text. I believe the original sentence was "that the first man, having received enlightenment and precepts directly from God, was not himself in that state". It is because in another translation of Rousseau's Discourse and Inequality the corresponding sentence is "the first man, once he had received his understanding and precepts directly from God, was not himself in this state"

2- The first man having been taken away to receive careful nursing, the next of my whilom partners was placed in the chair.
5- The first man having been taken away to receive careful nursing, the next of my whilom partners was placed in the chair.

To me, your quotes #2 and #5 look as if they are the same. Am I wrong? Do you feel any difference? Anyway, they are right sentences. "The first man having been taken away to receive careful nursing" here is an adverbial participle called as "participle clause with a subject". It may be paraphrased as "After/while the first man had been taken away to receive careful nursing".

3- Then said Jesus: 'Adam the first man having eaten, by fraud of Satan, the food forbidden of God in paradise, his flesh rebelled against the spirit; whereupon he swore, saying: "By God, I will cut thee!"

This sentence appears in the Gospel of Barnabas. The English version of the gospel was translated in the early 1900's from the Italian version. I believe the translator put an Italian collocation of "the first having eaten" into English word-to-word wise with some unknown intention.

4- As the motion of the will is not continuous there is nothing against the first man having consented to grace even in the first moment of his existence.

This "having consented to grace" is not a modifier of the first man. It is a construct called as "accusative with gerund". This means not "(against) the first man who had consented to grace" but "(against) the fact that the first man consented to grace".

6- That year, Pope Pius XII - the first man having visited the United States of America and having become pope - vigorously condemned Communism, and proclaimed that any Italian Catholic voting for Communists would be excommunicated.

This quote could be a proof against what CGEL is saying. But "the first man having visited the United States" is used here as an inserted phrase so that ï¼© suspect whether we could use such a phrase in normal syntaxes.

paco

[PS] By the way, D-rg, please don't post in bold big letters. When I look a posting in bold big letters, I am inclined to take the poster as if he or she has an intention to provoke other people.

Re: Spend time working

paco2004 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:57:52 GMT

Hello CJ

The term 'gerund-originated present participle' is my translation of a Japanese phrase I found in an English grammar dictionary written in Japanese. The OED gives an explanation as below, but regrettably it doesn't give a particular name to this kind of present participle.

The identity of form of present participles and gerunds probably also assisted the process whereby, at a later date, such a construction as "The king went a-hunting", formerly "on hunting", was shortened to "The king went hunting", the last word being then taken as the participle; and thus to the shortening of "The ark was a-building", originally "on building", to "The ark was building", in which, if "building" is taken as a participle, it must be explained as a participle of a passive form "being built".

paco

Re: Possessive before a gerund.

MrPedantic — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:04:56 GMT

I'm not sure whether the 'possessive + gerund' structure was preferred by English teachers, when native grammar was taught to the natives. I suspect that it was, if only because Fowler devotes so much space to it. But I would guess that most of those who produce written BrE for public consumption these days picked up most of their knowledge of grammar in French and Latin lessons. I wonder whether this in itself has made the 'fused participle' seem more acceptable. (Sometimes the construction has the feel of a translation from the Latin.)

Are there other aspects of English usage that have surprised you, since you moved here? On this forum, for instance, use of the subjunctive and plural verbs with collective nouns have often caused a certain amount of heated AmE/BrE discussion. It's intriguing sometimes to see how the 'older' usage has been preserved in the US.

As for Stanley Matthews...yes, BrE â we have probably passed each other in the street some time!

MrP