Search results for 'tag:Regards tag:Negatives' matching tags 'Regards' and 'Negatives'

Please correct this paragraph

Egyptian2007 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:58:03 GMT

Would you please correct the following paragraph for me?

Thanks for your assistance

The social trap is a situation where it is not possible to find optimal outcomes or optimal ways forward because the parties concerned lack the social capital and the trust needed to make progress. The situation I describe reveals a social relationship between head teachers and teachers where the head teachers see the teachers as unwilling to participate because they are preoccupied with earning money outside the school. Even if teachers were encouraged to participate, they would only pursue their self-interest. Teachers are also seen as ill-equipped to participate because they lack the necessary knowledge and skills. And even if these three things were not true, involving too many people in decision-making is regarded as bad for the decision-making process. The teachers for their part think that the head teachers are autocratic and not interested in the views of ordinary teachers. They believe that it is pointless to participate, simply because the head teachers have no power to share or decisions to make. They also regard the head teachers as having hidden agendas and, like the head teachersâ view of the teachers, acting in self-interested ways. Under these circumstances, these two groups of people have such negative views of each other that they are engaged in a social trap. They cannot get out of this trap because getting out of it means denying their construct of the other.

Re: Possible meaning of "oughtn't (to) have done" and "shouldn't have done"?

CalifJim — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:01:13 GMT

Here are my opinions. Two different should's are possible:

the should of expectation should-exp

the should of advice should-adv

should-adv is much more common than should-exp.

should-exp expresses an evaluation of the situation with regard to what is possible, probable, plausible, or necessary logically.

should-adv expresses an evaluation of the situation with regard to the propriety of the behavior of the people involved.

Because of the different ways a situation can be viewed, depending on the actual content of the sentence, those situations containing more 'agency' (subjects of the sentence referring to people, not things) are more likely to have a reading of should as should-adv. In fact, the interpretation of should as should-exp can only come through in a convincing way when the sentence is interpreted in a way that leaves questions of agency aside.

She should-exp be at John's. = I expect that she is at John's. (giving an opinion about her location only)

She should-adv be at John's. = It is advisable for her to be at John's. (giving an opinion about her duty, her behavior)

She shouldn't-exp be at John's. = ???I expect that she is not at John's. (Rare, I suspect.)

She shouldn't-adv be at John's = It is not advisable for her to be at John's.

She should-exp have been at John's. = ???I expect that she was at John's. (Rare, I suspect.)

She should-adv have been at John's. = It was advisable for her to be at John's (although she was not there). = She was supposed to be at John's (although she was not there).

She shouldn't-exp have been at John's. = ???I expect that she was not at John's. (Rare, I suspect.)

She shouldn't-adv have been at John's. = It was not advisable for her to be at John's (although she was there). = She was not supposed to be at John's (although she was there).

Note that as the negative and the auxiliary have are added, it becomes increasingly difficult to assign the meaning should-exp to the should in the sentence.

__________

She should-adv leave for America. = It is advisable for her to leave for America.

She shouldn't-adv leave for America. = It is not advisable for her to leave for America.

She should-adv have left for America. = It was advisable for her to leave for America, though she failed to do so.

She shoudn't-adv have left for America. = It was not advisable for her to leave for America, though she did anyway.

________

There is so much 'agency' in the idea of someone leaving for America that it is very difficult to see how these sentences could be construed as containing should-exp. Changes must be made to the sentences in order to cue the reader to the possibility of a reading with should-exp. Note the use of the progressive tense to help cue the reader toward should-exp.

She should-exp be leaving for America soon. = I expect that she will leave for America soon.

She shouldn't-exp be leaving for America for some time. = I don't expect her to leave for America for some time.

She should-exp have left for America by now. = I expect she has already left for America (by now).

She shoudn't-exp have left for America yet. = ???I don't expect that she has left for America yet.

The last two might more easily have been stated with will or would, the negative probably being less used than the affirmative:

She will/would probably have left for America by now. = I expect she has already left for America (by now).

She won't/wouldn't have left for America yet. = I don't expect that she has left for America yet.

_________

This task should only take three minutes to do. (should-exp because there is no agency.)

He's only going to mail a letter. He shouldn't be long. (should-exp because there is no agency when we merely estimate the time an action will take. There is nothing here to suggest that we would be evaluating the propriety, appropriateness, or correctness of his behavior.)

________

I hope this helps, even though it is a bit complex.

wonderful memory

chikei1984 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:21:53 GMT

Love is the most fantastic thing in the world. It can put someone in heaven or misery instead.

I would not regard my life since I had experienced a marvelous period with my girl friend. The time stopped and no one important than her in my eyes. We did not frustration, sad, pressure or any negative sentiments. I still feel enjoyable when I recall this wonderful memory.

Re: dispose of and deal with

Avangi — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:34:59 GMT

Hi Osee,

As applied to problems, some would consider them the same, to the extent that problems should be made to go away. "Dispose of" represents the more negative approach, as though you wish the problem had never arisen, and there were nothing to be gained by solving it, other than its disappearance. This reminds one of the "garbage disposal" unit in the sink, or disposing of trash in the trash bin.

"Deal with" treats a problem more like an exercise, or an opportunity to gain something positive. Of course not everyone feels that way. You often hear, "I just can't deal with this anymore!" Or, "Here! It's your problem now. You deal with it."

You may also "deal with" a used car dealer.

We also say, "I'm going to "handle" this problem, which is usually more neutral.

Regards, - A.

Re: Little

Avangi — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:27:48 GMT

Hi LiJ,

#3 represents the least amount of difference of the three.

The difference between #1 and #2 is analogous to negative and positive. There is a little difference vs there is not very much difference. I'm not sure if you can compare the magnitudes of the differences in #1 and #2.

You'd use #1 to answer someone who was saying there's no difference, and #2 to answer someone who was saying there's substantial difference. The magnitudes of difference could be equal.

Others may disagree.

Best regards, - A.

Edit. "the two sentences above"

Re: more big

Yankee — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:58:39 GMT

Hi Jim

I don't know whether LiJ actually intended to ask only whether "more big" is OK. What LiJ actually did ask about, however, was whether a sentence with the wording no+more+one-syllable adjective+than was OK. In other words, LiJ asked specifically about a negative structure using the word 'no' . Nona addressed the structure "no+more+adjective+than" as well as "no+more+a+noun+than". One of the focal points was the use of the word 'no'. I agreed with Nona's take on things in that regard.

I think that the format "no more an X than" (i.e. with a noun) is a common format -- which is presumably why Nona ended up using it as an example. I also agreed that the same sort of format can be used with simple adjectives. You apparently agree with that, too.

... there is no word deader.

Since when?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deader&r=66

I do not agree that you cannot say "deader". Dead is used in a number of ways -- not just the ungradable black-and-white way (i.e. not just the "you're either dead or you're not" way). In the example I gave, I thought it would actually sound more insulting to use a common comparative form. The wording "He's not deader than you." uses a "normal" type of comparative form (i.e. a one-syllable adjective made comparative with the -er ending). To me, the use of 'deader' would tend to suggest that the speaker was commenting on some sort of gradable kind of 'dead', thus meaning that 'both of you are dead to some (unspecified) degree' -- and that would sound insulting, don't you think? I do not think my example was beside the point in the least.

I agree that without any other context, "no more big than" sounds odd, but I agree with Nona that the structure 'no more big than' would be used differently than 'no bigger than'.

Re: 'most vs. almost

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:10:35 GMT

Here's an interesting article with regards to the confusion amongst Japanese learners of English:

Almost a Problem...

In Whatâs in a Word? In Japan Currents, July 1997: http://www.trussel.com/jap/almost.htm

I'm often struck by errors in non-native English which arise from the confusion of the words 'most,' 'almost' and 'mostly.' Some cause unexpected ambiguity, when I find that I can't quite guess what the speaker is trying to say. Others often convey strikingly comical images. Both may provide potentially useful examples for revealing the native speaker's sense of these words.

When I hear that "almost my friends are going to Hokkaido," assuming that the error is with the use of 'almost,' I'm faced with the dilemma of whether she means that most of her friends are going, though some aren't, or that they'll spend their time mostly in Hokkaido, but will also go to some other places. What should have been 'most of' or 'mostly' came out as 'almost,' and left me up in the air.

In the case of errors like "Almost Americans are fat," the intended meaning is not elusive -- the target is no doubt "Most Americans are fat." "Americans are mostly fat," while grammatically possible, is not so likely: the human body is mostly water. If I hear that "the water is mostly hot enough for tea," which should be 'almost hot enough,' it doesn't confuse me so much as conjure up a humorous image -- I find myself imagining little pieces of hot-enough water floating among some not-yet-hot-enough ones.

Historically, both "almost" and 'most' date back nearly 1,000 years in English, with 'almost' being formed as a compound of all+most. There was apparently no word 'mostly' until late in the 16th century, and until that time the meaning of 'almost' included the idea 'mostly all, nearly all' which is quite close to the way it's often used in error by non-native speakers today. With the development of "mostly," that sense correspondingly disappeared from 'almost,' leaving it with only the slightly negative implication of "very nearly," "all but," "a little less than (completely)."

'Almost' seems to correspond in meaning and to a large extent in usage, to the Japanese [hotondo], and this is probably the root of the problem for Japanese speakers of English: ideas which are expressed with [hotondo] may appear as 'most (of)', 'almost' or 'mostly' in English, a one-to-three (or four) correspondence bound to result in confusion.

Among these three "confusables," the use of 'most (of)' seems the least likely to cause trouble, being so close to [hotondo no], though in fact less experienced speakers may be bothered by when to use the 'of.' It only appears when the modified noun is preceded by 'the, these, those, a possessive form, or before the pronoun 'them.' So, "most boys," or "most of the boys," but never "most of boys" or "most the boys."

Considering the usage of 'almost,' it appears as the first choice for numerical expressions like "That lesson cost me almost a hundred dollars," "They first settled here almost 75 years ago," or "Almost 1000 people showed up at the opening." These suggest a basic idea of modifying something complete, perfect, 100%, to make it less so. So when 'almost' is used with words like "finished, done, dressed, built, written" etc., or "ready, full, empty, dead..." it adds that meaning of "not quite, nearly." "Almost late" isn't late, and "almost empty" isn't empty. So, "I was almost asleep," "the vacation is almost over," or the old song title, "It's almost like being in love." 'Almost' appears frequently with time expressions like "I left there almost three hours ago," "We'd better leave; it's almost morning," or "I can't believe it's the 20th -- it's almost Christmas already!" with the similar sense of 'not yet.'

With 'mostly,' the historical 'newcomer' of the group, the idea of 'for the most part' shows up when it is used for expressing quantities without numbers, especially when in some sense they can be counted, like "I don't know why they call this beef stew -- it's mostly potatoes," or "The students in that school are mostly Chinese." English and Japanese seem to part ways here. "I'm mostly at home on weekends" might be a likely candidate for [hotondo] in Japanese, but it's not a case where "almost" could be used in English, unless it were as "almost always." In "That garden is mostly weeds," or "Those boys are mostly from the neighboring town," English isn't aiming for the "less-than complete" idea, and so "almost" doesn't fit.

It seems that the English 'almost' emphasizes 'less-than-ness' while the Japanese [hotondo] focuses on 'mostly-ness.' Of course these are two sides of the same coin, but there are clearly some times when they don't match well enough for 'translation' English to succeed. Like most areas of language fluency, it's an area where we have to strive to somehow get in touch with the spirit of the language, and put the dictionaries aside.

Stephen Trussel

Interestingly, in a short article on Correct American Usage, Russell (1940:431-2) criticises Strattonâs description of good usage:

âAlmost and most,â he writes, âdo not mean the same things, though from the numbers of supposedly educated writers and speakers who use the shorter most incorrectly for the longer almost, one would almost believe that the distinction has disappeared.â Again, the author notes that advertisement should eb accented on vert, not tise, even though âPractice in this country seems to be about evenly divided.â Obviously the philosophy of language implied in these two articles may seriously affect any judgment the author makes on usage.

I just happen to be looking into this at the moment ... probably more info but hey ...

Cheers,

Phil Brown
Tokyo

Re: Either, neither, too, so do I, neither do I etc.

Kooyeen — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:28:54 GMT

Einmalige Narizsse wrote:
Hi! Hi there...
I've got question... --> I've got a question...

I've heard (in the USA):
A: I'm hungry
B: I'm either <-- No. You really heard this? Hmm...
Is it correct? No. Or I have to say "So am I". <-- This is ok. Also: "Me too" or "I'm angry too".

What about sentence below:
A: I don't know why he did it.
B: I don't know either/ Neither do I <-- Both are ok.

Or, hmm,
A:I hate chemistry
B: Neither do I / I hate either/ Me too <-- Only "me too" is ok.

And the last one:
Jews have their own New Year. And I wanna ask Jew: --> ...ask a Jew
Do you celebrate "our" New Year too/either? You need "Too". Or you could use "also": "Do you also celebrate..."

maybe in this case I shouldn't use "too" or "either", either (?) (can I say, maybe in this case neither should I use "too" nor "either"). ---> Maybe is this case I shouldn't use either (of them). Maybe I should use neither "too" nor "either". Etc.

When should I use "too", "either/neither", "so/neither do I" ??? I'm gonna tell you that in a few seconds...

I know, it's pretty easy, but I got lost.
Please help.
Regards,
EN

Too is used in affirmative sentences (=non negative), and either in negative sentences. Neither is basically not + either put together, so it already "contains" a negation. Examples:

I hate Mary. I hate her too. Me too. So do I. <-- "I hate" is affirmative.
I don't like Mary. I don't like her either. Me neither. Neither do I. <--- "I don't like" is negative
I hope she won't complain. I hope so too. Me too. So do I. <--- "I hope" is affirmative. You are referring to "I hope".
I hope she won't complain. I hope her father won't complain either. <---- This is the same as the one just above, but here you are referring to "won't complain", which is negative.
I don't think she will complain. I don't think so either. Me neither. Neither do I. <--- "don't think" is negative.

Ah, I was forgetting: did you know that there's a search function here in this forum that lets you search for old threads? There's a search box in the right top corner. Try that, you will find a lot of threads about basically anything.

And remember that I'm not a native speaker, so I'm always afraid to talk bulls... hmm, nonsense, LOL. A native speaker might tell you more later.

Re: Either, neither, too, so do I, neither do I etc.

Avangi — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:12:50 GMT

Einmalige Narizsse wrote:
Hi!
I've got question...

I've heard (in the USA):
A: I'm hungry
B: I'm either
Is it correct? Or I have to say "So am I".

What about sentence below:
A: I don't know why he did it.
B: I don't know either/ Neither do I

Or, hmm,
A:I hate chemistry
B: Neither do I / I hate either/ Me too

And the last one:
Jews have their own New Year. And I wanna ask Jew:
Do you celebrate "our" New Year too/either?

maybe in this case I shouldn't use "too" or "either", either (?) (can I say, maybe in this case neither should I use "too" nor "either").

When should I use "too", "either/neither", "so/neither do I" ???

I know, it's pretty easy, but I got lost.
Please help.
Regards,
EN

Hi E N,

Possibly one or the other of us hasn't been listening intently enough, because I don't remember hearing "either" used in quite the way you describe it. We say "either one or the other; I don't like either of those dresses; Either you change some of your habits, or we're through! Which one do you want? Either/Neither one will work!"

But in the types of phrases you gave as examples, I believe there always has to be a negative - but not a double negative. (I believe Spanish, on the other hand can use a double negative and it stays negative.)

I don't like that song.

I don't either. (can't use I don't neither)

Neither do I. (can't use Neither don't I or So don't I.)

We don't use "either" as an affirmative - only "so" and "too."

I like that song.

So do I.

I do too.

We don't use "I do either," or "Either do I."

That's the only problem I see. It's illogical, for sure, but although "either" is itself positive, it's only used in negative statements. OR, in choice statements, as I said above. For example, "In cases where you have an either and a do together, you either have to change the either to a neither, or you have to change the do to a don't."

In your very first example, I'm hungry, the replies could be, I'm not, So am I, I am too.

In your second example, A. and B. are both fine.

In the third example the problem arises because hate is a positive statement, although you may consider it a negative emotion. If you said, "I don't like chemistry," then we have a negative statement, and we can bring "either" and "neither" into play. "Neither do I; I don't either." But for "I hate chemistry," it has to be, "So do I: I do to."

Your fourth example is positive, so you can't use "either."

Re: Relation

Avangi — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:56:43 GMT

Fizzi wrote:

Would somebody please help me with the English?
Regards,
Fizzi

1- Information on x with no relation to benefit outcomes was not included.

Welcome back Fizzi!

Now that this has had a week to sink in, maybe the two negatives do make sense.

Assuming this is the introduction to a brochure on benefits - or a summary of some research that's been done - possibly an internet search - it could mean:

"Here's the information on X. We only included information relating to benefit outcomes."

Regards, - A.