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

Re: How To Teach Vocabulary

Titithi — Thu, 17 May 2007 16:07:36 GMT

I think before teaching vocabulary, we need to choose active and passive vocabulary. For passive words, we only realize and don't spend a lot of time to explain them. Students will research themselves by looking up in the dictionary or guessing from the context. Thus, we have to define which word as a passive or active vocabulary to teach.
For active words, we should save time by choosing the real active words which are needed to teach. By eliciting or brainstorming, we will find out which words are really new words and which words are needed to review. Sometimes ,we have to ask directly our students which words they don't know.The best way to teach active words is setting up the context (as Mr Joe has mentioned) by realia, real object, real story, pictures, visual aids, mapped- dialogue etc...Translation is obviously one way round the problem of difficult concept ,however it's not good for grasping the meaning. A suitable mother tongue equivalent is not always available.
Besides,we can use synonym, a quick and efficient way of explaining unknown words. With simple English, we explain new words by antonym and words family including suffixe and prefixe.Gestures and mimic play an important role when conveying new words. To understand a new word fully, a student must know not only what it refers to but also where their boundaries are separate.In other words, the affective meaning of an item can vary according to the context and speaker.The meaning of a word can only be understood in terms of its relationship with other words in the language.This is why translation is the brief way of explanation and necessary in some situation but it's not suitable to target the language.

Re: verb to a noun

CalifJim — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:38:15 GMT

As Mr. Micawber has mentioned, this transform is no longer productive in modern English.
There are hundreds of such Latin roots which occur in such pairs. It would probably be impractical to try to learn all the patterns. Nevertheless, if that sort of thing interests you, you might try keeping a list of verb-noun-pair patterns together with the particular verbs which fall into each pattern.

Some roots remain the same, simply adding "tion" (compact, compaction), but there are many possible patterns.
You may find these interesting. Some add a syllable with "a" before adding "tion"; some add the "tion" or "sion" right after the verb root. Most often all the verbs with the same root, but different prefixes, all form the noun the same way.

direct, direction (correct)
translate, translation (promote)
combine, combination (exhale, commute, permute)
condemn, condemnation (affirm, transport)
receive, reception (deceive) (eiv > ep)
redeem, redemption (eem > emp)
decide, decision (d > s)
erode, erosion (d > s)
conclude, conclusion (d > s)
expand, expansion (d > s)
exclaim, exclamation (ai > a)
pronounce, pronunciation (ou > u) (announce, denounce)
conjoin, conjunction (oin > unc)
reduce, reduction (produce, deduce, induce)
expel, expulsion (repel, compel, propel) (el > ul)
admit, admission (it > iss) (permit, commit, submit) [dismiss, dismissal!]
repeat, repetition (ea > e) (adds "ition", not the more usual "ation")
apply, application (y > ica) (comply *, reply *, imply) (*The verb and the noun have little in common where meaning is concerned!)
acquire, acquisition (r > s) (require)

How many more can you find?

CJ

Re: "this deep"

Mister Micawber — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:31:49 GMT

Chaoss, if you look at Webster's Collegiate (the printed dictionary I happen to use), for example, you'll see that it does not have entries for all words having common prefixes. There is simply not space to accommodate all of them, so it merely includes lists of the more common words under such prefixes as mis-, un-, pre-, etc. Many such words of a less common nature will not appear in the dictionaries, therefore except under their root, e.g. 'parse'.

Searching the internet reveals several reputable examples of the use of 'misparse', however:

(1)" Trueswell et al.(1999) found that children misparse these sentences even in the two-referent context. Specifically, children erred in their actions in a manner consistent with a destination interpretation, i.e. they were at chance when selecting between the two frogs and frequently moved one frog to an empty napkin (a "false destination").

(2) Return the current input line number. This is often used when errors are encountered to report the input line number responsible for the misparse.

(3) Misparsing induced by omissions has a far-reaching consequence in machine translation. Namely, a misparse of the input often leads to a translation into the target language that has incoherent meaning in the given context. This is more frequently the case if the structures of the source and target languages are quite different, as in English and Korean.

(4) # Have we solved the associativity problem? No. You'll observe that we can still misparse a-a-a.
# How do we handle associativity?

    * By considering which tree is correct.
    * By considering why the incorrect tree is incorrect.
    * By trying to change the grammar to eliminate the incorrect tree.

(5) This means that the parser might make mistakes and fail to find interpretations for some sentences. If the technique works correctly, however, only sentences that people tend to misparse will be misparsed by the system."