Search results for 'tag:Marriage tag:Expressions' matching tags 'Marriage' and 'Expressions'

Re: Placebo

Vanmee — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:02:26 GMT

Further comments:

21.I serve my head up on a plate. I BRING MY HEAD ON A PLATE, THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT FOR? (Do you remember that story in the Old Testament? SalomÃ© asked King Herodes for the Apostle Johnâs head; then, I think that the expression âto serve someoneâs head on a plateâ means that you surrender, that you give yourself, your heart, your love, to another person without expecting anything in return.)

30.There's nothing here but what here's mine. HMM, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS LINE. THERE IS NOTHING HERE, BUT SOMETHING IS MINE..HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT? (Itâs a nonsense verse, but with a lot of sense: Even if thereâs nothing here, this nothing belongs to me, itâs mine.)

31.Something borrowed, something blue. WHAT IS "BORROWED"? WHAT DOES "BLUE" MEAN IN THIS CONTEXT?

(Something old, something new

Something borrowed, something blue

And a silver sixpence in her shoe.

This is a rhyme is a tradition in British weddings: It is said that the marriage will be successful if the bride wears âsomething old, something new, something borrowed, something blue and a silver sixpence in her shoe.â Well, a coin in the shoe must be a bit uncomfortable!)

Please look through my narrative essay and correct grammar please

T_nattawat — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:41 GMT

Do you think the title is relevant to the story? I want to say like "For all your good hope, one day, he will know it" or "Don't regret for your good doing" but can't come up with any good title. Would you mind suggesting me any? If not, it is fine. Thank you so much for your help.

Regret Not For Good Deeds
Leo and I have been friends since we were in diapers. We live in the same neighborhood, go to the same schools, and know each other's house like it is our own. Even though Leo is not one of those handsome guys, he is very intelligent. In fact, he always ranks among the Top Three in our class. Apart from his academic excellence, he has a girlfriend that every guy would envy. Her name is Daw. She is a slim, tall girl, with twinkling black eyes. Her charming appearance and confident expression make all guys dream of her. However, there have been many rumors about this girl going around. I have never believed all that rubbish though. Until one night when I was at a pub. I saw her and was going to say hi; but then I have to stop because she was kissing with Bill, a rich and good-looking athlete in the school. I tried to tell myself that I might be drunk but the fact was that I just arrived and had not yet drunk anything, not even water. The following day I anxiously go to Leo's house and tell him what I saw last night. Believe it not, he chooses to trust his girlfriend, not his best friend who he had known for all his life. He says that I am jealous of him and made that story up to destroy their relationship. Before he runs away, he says, "get away from my life." I am stunned.
I come home and tell my mom what had happened. Much to my surprise, she starts smiling and says, "you are so me, my son." She asks me to calm down and tells me that she understands how I feel because she herself once had been in the same situation. She recalls her memory; a story that change the way I see the world begin.
Luk was married to Chi, but not everybody agreed with their relationship. Sue, Chi's mother strongly opposed it and declared that she would do anything to prevent the marriage. In her eyes, Luk was just a poor girl coming with empty hand to squander their wealth. Luk had realized this since they met for the first time, when her husband-to-be's mother greeted her with a piercing look and said, "from your head to your toe, nothing could match my son." Yet, their wedding ceremony was one of the biggest events in the area. All elders in the village were invited as well as many relatives in China. Probably, the only person who was home that day was the groom's own mother.
Everyone in the house loved her because she was kind, patient, and hard-working, but the attitude of her mother-in-law remained the same. She was so melodramatic and would blame her for every little mistake. One day, she shouted and accused Luk for trying to kill her by preparing water that was too hot. This kind of story kept repeating day after day. Luk was lost. She had done everything to please her mother-in-law but it was worthless. This painful position made her cry many times. Thanks to the support of her beloved partner and Luk's belief: "good deeds beget good results," she did not give up.
One day, Sue got the flu. She had a high fever; aches and pains spread all over her body forcing her to stay in bad all the time. Unfortunately, most of her children including Chi had happened to be away for several weeks, and the rest were too busy working. Sue was left home alone with Luk, the very last person on earth she would want to be taken care by. Although Sue had treated her badly, Luk did not mind sacrificing day and night to her. She would woke up at five in the morning to make a bowl of rice porridge, prepare Chinese medicine, and serve her. After finished her housework routine, she would boil water to made a pot of ginseng tea and had it next to Sue's bed to drink at night. Not even a word of "thank you" came out from her hard-to-please mother's mouth.
Four rough days had passed, Luk was very exhausted due to the fact that she had not gotten enough sleep lately. Everything was like usual, she got up early, cooked food, and prepared medicine. While she was handing a glass of ginseng tea to Sue. KRESHH! She dropped it. The glass was broken as well as all Luk's courage. She knew that she will be blamed for her clumsiness. Luk kept saying "sorry" like crazy. As to her surprise, what the mother said was, "it is okay; just prepare me another cup of that." That few words meant so much to her. She knew that a saying, "good deeds beget good results," is true. All her effort was starting to pay off. She quickly ran with smile to the kitchen, and a new cup of tea was prepared and served.
Just before Chi came back, Sue recovered from the flu. Although a mother-in-law still could not fully accept her daughter-in-law as her child, the relationship among them gradually got better. Sue was less arrogant towards her daughter and talked to her in a much nicer way. Unfortunately, she did not live very long; a couple years later, she passed away because of breast cancer. You will not believe what was her last words: "I am sorry, Luk, my wonderful child." My mom closes her story with a smile but her eyes are close to tears.
I am relieved by that story; at least I know that I have done the right thing.
That evening, Leo calls me saying that he is extremely sorry; he did not mean like what he said. He admits that he always knows that Daw does not take their relationship seriously; but he has denied that fact and fooled himself. Before he hang up, he says,"Thank you, dude, for pulling me out of that fancy world."

Re: sex before marriage , I'm not sure

Greenunicorn — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:52:53 GMT

Well,I don't think the point is wether to be safe or not.Consequences are important,of course,but the value of chastity itself is more important than the consequences you may suffer.I belive the noble thing is not to have sex before marriage because you respect yourself and the most intimate thing you can offer.You cannot give this precious thing-the pure expression of your deepest love-just to anyone.It's like being a towel that everybody uses.Making love with the one that means the world to you must be wonderful,but how can you be sure he or she deserves this gift?If you consider that person good enough to be your life companion,then he or she deserves to receive this form of affection.Anyway,maturity is necesary not only phisicaly speaking,but because when we are young our body is developing and the desires may be extremely powerful so we may think that what we feel is love,atraction for someone,but may be only hormones,something that it won't last after satisfying that need.Isn't it animal like?But most important of all is God's oppinion.Unfortunately people beliving in evolution don't take into consideration the fact that the Bible is not only talking about God,but it also provide high principals that are effective for everybody.Not making sex before marriage isn't an old fashioned conception,but is a good piece of advice from our Creator that knows us the best and wants us to enjoy life.God is not affected in any way by the fact that we make love or not before marriage.It's in our interest to mantain our self esteem and to give the one we love the purest evidence of our commitment.CONCLUSIONEX BEFORE MARRIAGE MEANS SELFISHNESS AND A POOR SELF ESTEEM,LACK OF SELF CONTROL.IF YOU BELIVE YOU ARE MATURE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX AND IF YOU DO IT BECAUSE YOU LOVE SO MUCH THAT PERSON,WHY NOT MARRY HIM/HER?

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Goodman — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:13:52 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Hi Hoa Thai,

Let me be the brave one in the attempt to tackle this long thread, if no one already posts a reply by the time I am done with writing You obviously have a high degree of the English language and I can comfortably say most will agree. But you seem to have been bothered by what had been said in the previous posts about the mixed usage of simple past and present perfect. The problem to me really has more to do with one's logic and persepctive, rather than his grammatical knowledge, and you seems to be stuck at the sentence which you posted 2 days ago. "What was the last movie you have seen?â can not be a viably grammatical sentence no matter how we dress it. The rules I learned told me that simple past and present perfect just can't be married and expected to sound happily together. Consider this sentence "when was the last time you have talked to your ex-husband?". Do you agree or not agree that this is not a sound sentence? If you say "I haven't talked my your ex-husband after the devorce but I e-mailed him", then the conjunction [but] will validate the use of mixed tenses. But they can not exist in the same frame of sentence sturcture.

Your questions:

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â I don't think so, "what" usually requires a defined answer and "among" offers alternatives in my opinion. If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation? "Ever" in this context does not sound right. "Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective as in "What was / is the most scary/ borning/ bloody movie [that] you have ever seen?" Because we are associating movies by their names which do not change even as time passed, we can use either past or present [was/ is] to refer to the movies with resepct to the rest of the context in present perfect.

By the same token, we often hear people say soemthing like: "what was the lady's name we have just met?" which is fine either with [was / is] becasue "was" paints a picture of the time she was introduced to you, and "is" paints a picture of her face with her name in general.

Other than that, I really don't know how to break it down further.

And regarding â recentlyââ¦

Itâs not a proprietary word to mean present perfect, if there is any hint / notion that this is the case, itâs not true.

"I recently took a business trip to Washington DC". Simple past with no defined time. âRecentlyâ here defined it only as short time ago.âOk

inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Hoa Thai — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:07:10 GMT

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Re: anything to go by

nona the brit — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:09:07 GMT

I don't think you've quite grasped it. You haven't taken on board this part of Clive's explanation - it is used to indicate that something may be a guide, a hint, a useful indication. It makes the speaker sound a bit sceptical, not 100% certain..

Forum rules are definitely the guide to behaviour here, no doubt about it, there is nothing to be sceptical about, so your first use isn't really correct.

With this expression you are predicting an outcome using information that doesn't absolutely predict anything. You are acknowledging this. You strongly believe that you are predicting the right outcome (or usually anyway) but there isn't necessarily a direct link between the info and the result. You are using your experience/knowledge of the situation to create a link.

The money/marriage example doesn't really work either as they are just asking your opinion - you are not backing this opinion with evidence of Mary's previous behaviour. You have nothing to judge her by. It's just your simple opinion - you are not stating what is guiding you towards this opinion.

There is also the doubt element - you are not saying 'we should compare against this previous situation' so much as 'I think we could compare against this previous situation'

Is anything to go by = if this is worth consideration as I'm judging by this example

Further examples.

'Do you think Mary will Mary me?'

'if what happened to Brian is anything to go by, no, she won't'. (In the past she didn't marry Brian for some reason).

Your friend could turn around and say 'Well, no, we can't go by what happened to Brian, as Brian turned out to have a false leg he tried to keep secret from her, and I've got no secrets!' He is saying that actually, no, Brian's experience isn't a good way to judge how Mary will behave with me as the situations are completely different. Mary's reason for not marrying Brian won't apply to him.

But if Mary didn't marry Brian because she had an awful phobia about getting married, then your comment is a pretty good one.

Help needed!!!

Pradi — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:33:39 GMT

Kindly Help me in modifying with the errors in the following sentences

Instructions:

Please complete the exercises given below.
Then rename the file by adding â_your full nameâ.

e.g., Editing Test_TeenaGunt

Use the âTrack changesâ option. This will indicate any insertion or deletion made within the document in a different color.
To put this option on:

Click on âToolsâ on the main toolbar.
Select âTrack Changesâ in the drop down menu.

Â§ Save the document with the âtrack changesâ on.

Please make a note of the time taken to complete each exercise.
The objective of this exercise should be to have an output that
reflects a high standard of English while retaining the original meaning.
You may use a dictionary and/or thesaurus.

Exercise 1:

Instructions

The following is a list of sentences from documents to be published in international academic journals. Edit each sentence by correcting all errors (grammatical, typographical, etc.) and awkward constructions and modifying all informal/colloquial expressions.

1. Another example is that, when Japanese prepositions are compared with other languages, it can help students deepen their knowledge of Japanese grammer.

2. The age-related labor-force rate of women in Philippines demonstrates an M-shaped curve. This is because many married women exit their jobs following marriage and re-enter the workforce when some years are passed.

3. In the end of Fiscal Year 2004, Canadian life insurers held 32 million dollars of domestic stock, while this figure stood at a mere 20 million dollars in the end of fiscal year 2003.

4. This paper comprises of three main parts: first, we provide the findings of our study; second we describe the proposed method and third; we list results achieved though this method.

5. These observations suggest that chemical shift of the atom incorporated into the phosphole skeleton is not due to an inductive effect but a conjugated effect of the phosphole moiety.

6. Doubtlessly, students were noticed to get higher scores after following the learning pattern recommended.

7. We are hard to define the complex relation between modernity in the capitalist society and Modernism in culture only from the view of English literature because of nature of popularization.

8. If Product X was first introduced in 1995, then Product Y is believed to have been manufactured before Product X.

9. The Chinese-Indian projectâthe first of itâs kindâmet moderate success. However, the possibility remains that the interaction between two neighboring countries will have favorable consequences.

10. It reminded me of Brianâs voice, who is my cousin, and also of my fathers voice.

11. The old system, which was developed during the years of high economic growth rate has been discontinued since 2003.

12. In this study we synthesized a wide variety of polymers and their photochemical behavior was investigated.

13. Bearing this theory and the fact that sherds are very rare in the Proto-Hassuna levels of Seker al-Aheimar in mind, such a situation as in the Khabur basin may not have been unlikely to be the case in southern Iran as well.

14. The main question that should be asked is when and why does the choice of creating a new division become advisable.

15. The functions of the new machine are same as the old machine, expect for slight improvement in speed.

16. Among factors that have influence to the strategic decision of companies, researchers have proposed that the two following factors are the most influential of all.

Exercise 2:

Instructions

The following is an excerpt from a book entitled âExotic Birds of Brazil.â Edit this passage by correcting all errors (grammatical, typographical, etc.) and awkward constructions and removing all informal/colloquial expressions. Do not hesitate to rewrite entire sentences or paragraphs.

3.1 Give-and-take relationships among mixed-species flocks of birds

Through the study, we observed the seven species of birds in the flock. For each of these seven species, half of the times that I observed they were in company of other species. Or else they folaged alone. It is different from the situation of birds living in temperate forests, such as Africa, where such behaviour is seen during non-breeding season only, and not during the breeding. The reason is because during this period the birds become busy with building nests. But in Brazil despite of this, seven species were spending half each day in mixed-species flock. I already knew from books and papers that in the tropical forests, mixed-species flocks are present through the year, but to see it at first hand I wondered just why this occurred.

Not only in appearance but also the foraging technique at which each bird was respectively most proficient, was unique to each. However, comparing the technique used when each species was or was not foraging in mixed-species flock revealed the technique used to be different in six of the seven species (Figs 3, 4). The species, which showed the greatest difference, was the Crested Parrot. When foraging together with conspecifics or solitarily, the Crested Parrot sat on branches at a height of >6 ms, and flew and nabbed small insects for example bees and flies. Well, after joining a mixed-species flock the Crested Parrot comes down to a height below 6 m and starts to forage for caterpillars, centipedes, and spiders. Paradise Kingfisher also changed its foraging method from principle method of flying into air to catch insects on the wing, to one where he hovered by fluttering to catch insects residing in the foliage.

I often witnessed the Crested Parrot observing and following Red Tailed Starlings which were picking insects from the ground surface. It seems the Crested Parrot was trying to cacth the food that the Red Tailed Starling failed to capture. But, I was unable to confirm if the Crested Parrot was successful in catching any food in that way. Perhaps because in this relationship the Red Tailed Starling is aggressively dominant, the Crested Parrot could approach the Red Tailed Starling only to within a certain distance, and to have done so any closer might trigger an attack.

Re: another question in reference to it

Clive — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:33:33 GMT

Hi,

Clive wrote:

Are these sentences right?

A: Construction of a bridge over the river made the village people very happy. OK
(Of course I know The construction is good. Yes)

B: Destruction of cities by nuclear weapons did happen in the latter half of the 21st century. OK grammar

C: The Destruction of cities by nuclear weapons did happen in the latter half of the 21st century. OK grammar, but don't use a big D.

(I think future historians would make such statements as B or C Which cities are you actually thinking of?)

Hi! Clive. I want to know a little more about these three sentences. Thanks in advance.

You wrote the underlined parts.

A: Construction of a bridge over the river made the village people very happy.

The construction of a bridge over the river made the village people very happy.

I think "made the village people very happy" is a concrete phrase, but "Construction of a bridge over the river" sounds like a concept. I think both can't go with each other. Am I right? No, I think you have the wrong idea here. Consider 'The idea of marriage made Mary happy'. You don't think you can say things like that?

Or is "construction of a bridge over the river" made by omitting "the" from "the construction of a bridge over the river"?
If so, is the reason the omission is done that "construction of a bridge over the river" is an idiomatic expression?

Whetehr or not you use the article just depends on how generally or specifically you want to speak.

B: Destruction of cities by nuclear weapons did happen in the latter half of the 21st century. OK grammar

C: The destruction of cities by nuclear weapons did happen in the latter half of the 21st century. OK grammar.

Is "The destruction of cities by nuclear weapons" in C a concept or a concrete occurrence?

Is "Destruction of cities by nuclear weapons" in B made by omitting "the" from "the destruction of cities by nuclear weapons"?
If so, is the reason the omission is done that "destruction of cities by nuclear weapons" is an idiomatic expression?

Same comment as above.

You still didn't tell me if you actually think any cities were destroyed in this period.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Married to/with

Eviltony — Thu, 10 May 2007 14:11:35 GMT

The only time I would use 'to' with married and _not_ speak about the person's spouse is in the expression "He is married to his work". In all other cases I would be speaking of a person's spouse, she is married to her childhood sweetheart, he is married to that woman you used to work with etc. etc.

I would never used 'with' in relation to marriage to mean a spouse, unless and only if I was speaking in terms of "she is married with a husband, three children and a house in the country" where the husband, the children and the house are all part of one big package. Apart from that, married with refers to the accoutrements of a marriage....
He is married with a mortgage and a car he can't afford,
She is married with two children and a mother-in-law from hell!

Re: Correction of a Translation (Compulsory: British English)

Bennyman — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:52:58 GMT

Can you unpack a bit more the nuance of the colloquial Danish expression? Phrases that spring to mind in English are things like "arranged marriage", which isn't quite right, or "bartered with other plantation owners", which doesn't quite bring across the dehumanising element of treating enslaved men like animals put out to stud or women like broodmares.

Well, it basically means that a said person, be it father or slave owner, can decide to marry you away to a stranger. However, it is not quite the same as arranged marriage as that strikes me as something very fatherly or domestic.

Furthermore, to 'Marry them/her away' can be done by anyone "owning" another person, like a slave owner.

In any case, the exact translation of it, word for word: "Gifte dem bort" = "Marry them away".

So what do you think the correct translation would be?

I thought of this one:

- [pronoun] away in marriage

NB: Yes. It's hard to believe that human beings could treat their own as animals to be bartered and used for mating as if they were stud dogs.

The American Negro

In 1620 the first Negroes were shipped to the state of Virginia on the American East Coast by Dutch merchants. In the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th century large cargo loads of African Negroes - men, women and children - were sent across the Atlantic Ocean. Many died from the inhumane conditions on board the ships. The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where the men were often separated from their wives and children. The strongest men and women worked in tobacco and cotton fields in the South and at cane mills in the West Indies. Only a few â especially the beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves: looking after children, cooking and washing for the white families. The Negro families lived in small cabins and had a little piece of land, where they could grow their own vegetables and keep hens and geese. They were the plantation ownerâs property, and he could punish, sell or give them away in marriage. Many Negroes tried to run away to the North; others protested by working slowly, simulating illness or by instigating open rebellion. Quite often, the slave owners feared their own slaves. The plantation owners lived considerable distances from each other, and there were many more slaves than whites. One of the slavesâ most dangerous weapons was arson. A whole yearâs revenue could go up in smoke, if a barn full of corn or tobacco was set ablaze, and it was difficult to identify the culprits. In the 1830s and 1840s many men and women, both white and black, worked for the abolition of slavery. More and more people felt that slavery was irreconcilable with the beautiful words of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are created equal and have certain rights, amongst them freedom. A lot of progress was made, and in 1865, after a long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that slavery was abolished and the Negroes free.

This looks better.