http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aSpeechesSearch results for 'tag:Speeches' matching tag 'Speeches'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WrongSentences/lqrhc/post.htm#997496Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:04:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997496avangiHow can i change them wihout adding new words. I'm no asleep. No! I'm asleep! I'm not asleep. You speak a very good English. (except "Your English is very good") Impossible. You speak very good English. Everybody was late. This is okay in casual speech. Everyone was late. The people in this town is very friendly. Impossible. The people in this town are very friendly.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#997375Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:09:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997375cool breezeWhat do you think of this rewording: - That we can't afford it is the simple reason we aren't going. It occurs in informal speech, as you know. In no way does it change the grammatical nature of that, of course. I cannot think of relative that occurring in initial position. Relative that is possible only in restrictive relative clauses: This is the book that I bought. He told me something that happened yesterday. I read some of the books that he told me about. Very few people would say: That I bought this is the book. That happened yesterday he told me. (Possible, but that is a demonstrative pronoun, at least in Helsinki! ) That he told me about I read some of the books. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowPronounceAfterF/lpmpm/post.htm#996228Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:27:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996228dokterjokkebrokHi 1) was there --> You could try making the 'th' sound a bit more like a /z/. Then the tongue won't necessarily touch the back of the upper teeth anymore, but that's quite acceptable in my opinion. Note: the 's' in ' wa s ' is actually a 'z' sound, similar to 'zz' in ' bu zz '. So there's a clear distinction there. 2) If this --> probably a matter of careful pronunciation. - articulate your 'th' very gently; it's a very subtle sound, and it's certainly not a /t/ or /d/. - place the tip of your tongue just behind your upper front teeth and keep the rest of your tongue relatively stable and anchored to the upper molars . - try not to place the tip...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WritingAboutAtThought/lplwj/post.htm#996011Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:54:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996011mister micawberYes, thoughts are like speech: they can be either direct or indirect: I thought/said, "Now I'm really in trouble!" I thought/said that I was really in trouble then!http://www.englishforums.com/English/FineByOrFineWith/lplnx/post.htm#995949Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:39:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995949cliveHi, I don't really see any difference, except that to me 'with' seems more typical of casual speech. Clive.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#995076Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:24:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995076avangiWhat do you mean by 'idiomatic'? Are you saying that "Wow! She's too beautiful!" means 'not really beautiful'? I know for a fact that too means also 'very' in a formal register, for example: "Thank you, you are too kind." Hi, MichalS. I think we're on the same page. "Idiomatic" is good, not bad! If a person's speech is in the style and manner of a "correct speaking" native speaker, we'd say, "He's idiomatic." "His speech is idiomatic." "The expressions he uses are idiomatic." Idioms are also idiomatic, but they're special rather than normal. They use normal words in special ways. Edit. I guess...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994909Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994909gleb_chebrikoffI was really glad to help, Icadia. Ask again should you have any further questions on grammar and related areas. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994900Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:01:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994900icadiaThanks for your nice answer. You helped me.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994860Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:04:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994860gleb_chebrikoffIcadia, I understood the focus of your question; therefore, I mentioned that 'if the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past: John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. ' ... until the rain has stopped should be transformed into ... until the rain had stopped in indirect speech, no doubt about that. It is highly improbable that the rain hasn't yet stopped at the time of reporting Mark's words, so no...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994755Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:39:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994755icadiaThanks!! I appreciate your replies. Yes. you are right. I think the legislation about driving is still effective, so the tenses don't need to be changed, which means his comment is still relevant. I posted a contradictory question. If his comment had been made more than a years ago, or the legislation wasn't effective anymore at present, Indirect speech would be "it was against the law in our state for her to drive until she had been seizure-free for six months." Am I understanding right? To say frankly, What I really wanted to know is the tense after "Until" Mark : I am going to wait here until the rain has stopped. Indirect speech : He said he was going to wait there until the rain had stopped. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994733Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994733gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Icadia, Direct speech: It's against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. Indirect speech: 1. The provisions of the legislation have probably not changed by the time of reporting John's words, so there is no need to change is into was ; 2. If the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past: John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. (Please note that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994723Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:43:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994723john clasetThis is the correct sentence: John said that it is /was against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been * seizure-free for six months. *It will always be "has been", because it is a present-perfect-progressive. John is implying that it is against the law for her to drive, depending on the duration in which she's had no seizures . The quotations do not affect it at all.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htmSat, 21 Nov 2009 07:21:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994662icadiaA weeks ago. John made a comment below. John's comment: "it's against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months." Now. I am reporting what he said, Let's consider his comment isn't relevant anymore, so I will use the past tense of "Say". John said that It was against the law in our state for her to drive until she __ seizure-free for six months. I am really wondering which tense is good for the blank Could anyone answer for me?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ConfusionAboutAdjectives/lpzvm/post.htmFri, 20 Nov 2009 15:00:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993951vini.chI feel awful. The flowers in the garden smell sweet. Please tell me which part of speech is awful and sweet. Thanx!http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectTenseReportedSpeech/lpdqz/post.htm#993638Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:13:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993638mister micawberI'd say Yes, Yes, Yes, and Not necessarily.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichVsThat/lpczq/post.htm#993185Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:35:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993185dokterjokkebrokIn this case, I think which and that are both possible. According to most grammar books, you can use which and that interchangeably in restrictive clauses, although there are several occasions on which that must be used or when 'that' is preferred. However, I see no reason to support the use of ' that' in this sentence. 'That' is usually preferred in informal speech though. You can hear it more often on radio and television, and so perhaps it simply feels more natural to use 'that' instead of 'which'. Unfortunately, I'm not a grammar expert, and perhaps there is another, more plausible argument that could clarify things for you. Regardshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SupposedTo/lxlnb/post.htm#990917Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:58:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:990917antonijaHi B.J! I think the underlined phrase stands for, in the first sentence They were supposed to deliver the flowers. or They should have delivered the flowers, in the second: "This screw should fit into the hole... . I think it is shortened in speech, as a colloquial expression.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Hello/lxwmw/post.htm#990507Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:47:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:990507mister micawberWhen 'might' is not used as the past of 'may' in reported speech and similar tense regressions, there is no difference. In particular, there is no difference in probability.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoInquiriesIntransitiveTransitive-ProblemRelativePronounPos/lxkrh/post.htmTue, 17 Nov 2009 10:30:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:990410minofachinoAfter talking it out with some fellow teachers and looking some terms up...we're still a little unsure about our conclusions. Any clarifications would be greatly appreciated! "I'm going to talk about Ichiro Suzuki." (Starting out a speech). When I substitute "speak" for "talk"--it works pretty good (I'm going to speak about Ichiro Suzuki). When I use "tell" it sounds really weird to me (I'm going to tell about Ichiro Suzuki). I feel like I need an object or something with "tell"--"I'm going to tell you about Ichiro Suzuki." Is this because "speak" and "talk" are generally more intransitive? Even if this is the case, "tell" can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Close/lxcvd/post.htm#989630Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:37:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:989630gleb_chebrikoffPleasehelp, some words may have a single form, which, however, corresponds to several parts of speech. In this light, open can be an adjective ( an open window ), a verb ( open the window ), or a noun ( life in the open ). Such words are called homomorphs. If you are interested in the details of ' open vs clos ed '' relationship, I wish to tell you that open as adjective existed even in Old English (and was written the same way as nowadays), but close was gradually changed to closed , reflecting the need to distinguish it from close meaning ' only a short distance away or apart in space or time ', as in The hotel is close to the sea . Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PerfectWithYesterday/lnhpg/post.htm#984947Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:30:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:984947califjimAnd who is correct? Could you tell me, please? Different authors have different opinions. There is no way, when dealing with two very distinguished authors, to say that one is correct and the other wrong. Therefore, no one can tell you who is correct. You are free to form your own opinion. I completely understand Huddleston's example , within the reading he intends , and I agree with him on that one. I do not, however, understand his point in example . As a consequence, I can imagine myself generating , but not in my own speech or writing. Of the two authors, I believe Huddleston is dealing with much more subtle linguistic phenomena of a sort not often encountered in ordinary, everyday English, so I recommend that you follow the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/FreedomSpeechRussiaChinaOther-Countries/9/glkmw/Post.htm#972521Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:24:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:972521saltukhanFreedom of Speech Do you really believe that does it exist? Freedom of Speech can exists? Can you imagine a world like this? I can't. Imagine that. we can say whatever we want, whatever we think. Our thoughts, sayings would conflict with some people's benefits. There are a lot of people. So there will a lot of thoughts and sayings. A lot of thoughts and sayings will block some people's benefits. What will those PEOPLE who lost their benefits? They will try to stop freedom of speech. Who are those PEOPLE? They are RICH People. So Conclusion, Rich people are taking all precautions in order to block Freedom of Speech by affecting states. They affect all governments, military forces,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DevelopingDemocracyTurkey/lkqrx/post.htmSun, 15 Nov 2009 19:47:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:972499saltukhanDear EnglishForums Members, I am from Turkey. Nowadays we discuss about democracy a lot in Turkey. There are a lot of different cultures and different races live in Anatolian, in eurasia, in Turkey. There are Kurdish, Laz, Armenian, Georgian, Circassian, Assyrian, Rom and Turkish people in this geography. Most of them are Turkish Republic Citizens. Most of them are living in peace. But you know its not too easy to keep your own culture in a large community. All of these groups, even Turks, are losing their own cultures, languages. Technology, devolopment and being a large population give harm to these. The day before our parliament had a meeting about democratic devolopent. It was a very hard discussion. Republican...http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsAboutPastConstruction/lkmkx/post.htm#971669Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:01:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:971669gleb_chebrikoffRaja, let me make a number of essential clarifications: 1. ' Hence , that the 'do'-construction in "Who went to the park?" is not possible or at least less preferable (which of the two is it in your opinion?) in "Who went to the park?"' - under neutral circumstances, the do-support would be impossible, but, in some exceptional cases, we may resort to using it in a context like: Tom, , and Harry intended to go to the park. - Yes, but who DID go to the park? in which case 'did' should carry the logical stress of the sentence (this is referred to as 'emphatic do'). 2. 'who', in this case, serves as a subject or, to put it differently, is an interrogative...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Games/lkjzn/post.htm#970659Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:32:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970659cliveHi, Which game are you talking about? (two games) I assume both games are finished. I'm talking about the game before. Or I'm talking about the game before that one. Both are OK. The exact context may make one sentence more natural than another. T here are also other ways to say it, eg I'm talking about the game before last. It's always necessary to write out or speak in complete sentences? No, definitely not in speech or in informal writing. Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpMotivation/lkwvg/post.htmFri, 13 Nov 2009 11:46:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970247d26dianahello, i was wondering if someone can help me out i have to write a sort of motivation..a sort of motivation because is limited to 900 charactershe the motivation is for a traineeship in a human rights institution. Although living in a Europe promoting social cohesion, tolerance and democracy yet there are many places in the Union where people are deprived of fundametal rights. Millions of people are experiencing poverty and social exclusion in the European Union. Millions of people are denied the right to decent housing or decent work. Millions of people are tortured and abused of on acount of their ethnic backround or religious believes. * society is a place where all the above mentioned are very much present and social...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PluralInanimateObjectsWhose/lkwch/post.htm#970232Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:27:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970232cool breezeWelcome to EF, badgrammar! I hope you'll soon be able to change your screen name to Good Grammar. It is correct to use the possessive form whose as a relative pronoun whenever a possessive form is needed: This house, whose windows are shut, is for sale. Or: This house, the windows of which are shut, is for sale. These houses, whose windows are shut, are for sale. Or: These houses, the windows of which are shut, are for sale. This man, whose car is parked in the street, wants to sell it. Using whose to refer to inanimate objects is not at all common in speech. It is mostly used in formal written English. (I'm sorry I couldn't come up with more natural examples of whose . ) CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WeLivedIrelandFiveYears/2/lkcjp/Post.htm#970002Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:52:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970002dimsumexpressSorry to butt in like this. I'm sure Clive will give his expert advice but let me try to explain it the way I see it (from a non native speaker's point of view). Regarding the New York sentence, since both the living/working occur at the same time I see no reason for using the past perfect in combination with the simple past as the two suggest different times. I had never seen such a beautiful beach before I went to Kauai. The past perfect is needed here regardless of the time word 'before' . It has to do with 'the PP have never seen' put in the past (up until some point in the past as opposed to up until now) . I did not have any money because I had lost my wallet. Tony knew...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MaterialsNaturalSpokenEnglish/lkhbh/post.htmThu, 12 Nov 2009 22:35:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:969908old man gordonI have used a textbook for about 10 years: Whaddaya say? by Nina Weinstein. It helps students recognize typical speech patterns and common reductions that Americans use, such as the title phrase "What do you say - whaddaya say" or "for - fer", "your - yer", et al. As far as I know, it hasn't been updated to CD, and I just can't use the casette tapes now that I've gone digital. Do any of you have good materials to recommend?http://www.englishforums.com/English/Invitations/lkvjz/post.htmThu, 12 Nov 2009 04:42:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:969175meimei miandianrenDear all Could you please check the invitation letter? I would like to invite all of our senior staff to volunteer fare-well and welcome party at this evening, to 5 mins speech to current volunteer and new comer. I am so sorry to late inform you. Thanks and regardshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowThankSomeoneTellingSomeoneElse/lkckx/post.htm#968658Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:45:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968658madpotatoexpertthanks Clive. now I got the proper replies for everyday informal speech. what if it is really a formal situation?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowThankSomeoneTellingSomeoneElse/lkckx/post.htm#968636Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:27:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968636cliveHi, just to reiterate, say someone tells you "hey I saw jack & jil yesterday and they said hi to (saluted) you and said very nice things about you". You need capital letters here. Question 1: I want to thank this person for telling me that. what is the common way to reply to this? Would this be too formal or maybe even incorrect: "thanks for extending their salutation to me". 'Salutation' is a very formal word. Your whole sentence would sound comical to a native speaker. In everyday speech, I'd simply say 'Thanks' or 'Thanks for letting me know'. Question 2: what would be the right situation to use each of these "they said hi" In everyday...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SoAndTherefore/lkbdb/post.htm#968255Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:18:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968255mister micawberPeople likely do in speech, but one is redundant in the written language.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Eat/lkrzb/post.htm#968021Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:19:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968021cliveHi, #1 more clearly indicates purpose. But we often say #2 in informal, everyday speech. Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InEverydayConversationGottaGotta/ljmnr/post.htm#967775Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:12:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967775califjimWhat you're saying is that it really doesn't matter which one to use? That's right. Both are in the category of casual speech, and it doesn't matter which you use. You can use one of them in the morning and the other in the afternoon! Mix them up however you like! CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RequisiteRedCarpet/ljxkl/post.htm#967636Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:13:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967636madhulkIs "a" supposed to be "at"? I can hear it loud and clear. It's 'a' all right. Do you have a secondary reason for assuming that? No, just that's what I stumbled upon at Wikipedia. Would need more context to confirm such rash assumptions. Well Oliver has to make an addressing speech in front of the stockholders of his company because they are losing money because of his binges.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CooperativeReciprocalCollaborative/ljpmz/post.htm#967635Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:13:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967635califjimFemale speech is typically cooperative, reciprocal and collaborative . How do should I understand these three? They cooperate, reciprocate, and collaborate. That is, each helps the other to keep the conversation going, each allows the other a turn to speak, and each works with the other toward the 'goal' of the conversation, which might be, for example, solving a problem or coming to an understanding about a topic. As you said, it can all be summarized as cooperation in one form or another. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CooperativeReciprocalCollaborative/ljpmz/post.htmTue, 10 Nov 2009 17:26:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967492newguestHi Female speech is typically cooperative, reciprocal and collaborative . How do should I understand these three? Does it mean that their speech is based on cooperation with each other ... hmm, I'm not sure. Thankshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InEverydayConversationGottaGotta/ljmnr/post.htm#966966Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:05:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:966966califjimI understand that "I've gotta ~" and "I gotta ~" both mean "I have got to ~," and both are quite common in colloquial terms. Now my question is, which one of them is actually more frequently used in your everyday conversation? Which one do you use? Similarly, for "I have got (I have) ~", is it "I've got ~" or " I got ~" that is more commonly and frequently used again in everyday conversation? As a learner of English, you should stick to "I've got" and "I've got to". As for whether "I've gotta" or "I gotta" is more often used in casual speech, I couldn't possibly guess. These are in free variation. Often the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/FreedomSpeechRussiaChinaOther-Countries/9/glkmw/Post.htm#966145Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:12:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:966145cool breezeI don't feel that the traditional media have improved in either of those countries. In fact, I feel that the UK may have climbes up by default and deception. I have had serious posting problems recently and that's why I'm late in replying to you. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but maybe Reporters Without Borders and I see the freedom of speech from a slightly different angle from yours. The organisation doesn't consider it wrong for a country to have a tabloid press that concentrates on what uneducated people in particular want to read about. In my opinion, such a press can only exist in a country that has at least some freedom of the press. There are no tabloids in North Korea! In the UK, the tabloids give...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnASpeech/ljkhb/post.htm#966079Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:08:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:966079mister micawberGoogle SPEECH MAKING , and you will find many pages of tips and techniques.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsVerbing/lwnzz/post.htm#964738Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:07:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:964738khoffWikipedia defines "verbing" as the creation of verbs from other parts of speech. (An example would be the creation of the verb form "verbing" from the noun "verb.") The context seems to be linguistics. I don't know if it means something different to speech therapists or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28linguistics%29http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsVerbing/lwnzz/post.htm#964675Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:58:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:964675avangiTo non-grammarians, a verb is just a word. "Verbiage" is choice of words or wordiness. "To verb" would be to form words. Just guessing, I'd think that to a speech therapist, it would mean forming and repeating complex sounds (not necessarily recognized words), as opposed to random mumbling.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronounsIndirectSpeechUses/ljcbw/post.htm#963710Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:03:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:963710califjimwhen i I need to say "she" i I say "he" having slip of tongue, do es this ever happen to even to native speakers?? No. Very rarely, if ever. instead "tell me when he is leaving" i I may say "tell me when is he leaving" i I wonder if it makes a big problem and native speakers do such things. Native speakers occasionally use the "wrong" word order in these situations, especially in very long sentences, but I don't recommend imitating that practice. The "wrong" way is understandable, but in most cases it marks the speaker as a foreigner. Practice saying it the right way for shorter sentences, and you will gradually say it right automatically. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PronounsIndirectSpeechUses/ljcbw/post.htm#963605Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:44:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:963605vorparThose particular slips are ones that native speakers don't usually make. The most common native slips I hear are: irregardless (not a word, it's regardless) and supposably (pronounced supposedly). Misplacing the verb isn't a big deal. It's noticeable and may be slightly confusing, but most people will understand the speaker. Work on gender words, English doesn't have very many, and it may cause confusion to use the wrong one.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronounsIndirectSpeechUses/ljcbw/post.htmFri, 06 Nov 2009 17:00:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:963551hyacinth.88i have a question about using pronouns.sometimes i can use them wrongly without noticing, i mean when i need to say "she" i say "he" having slip of tongue,do this ever happen to even native speakers?? also while speaking and using indirect structures i sometimes disregard the rule of indirect sentences e.g. instead "tell me when he is leaving"i may say "tell me when is he leaving" i wonder if it makes a big problem and native speakers do such things. thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsItRightToSayGoOnDo/ljbhv/post.htm#963372Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:28:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:963372ivanhrNormally it would be 'go on and do something' but the 'and' is often omitted in informal speechhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Have/lwprj/post.htm#963125Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:59:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:963125califjimAs far as I know, "Have you any idea?" is a very old BrE usage. Nowadays, you'll hardly hear it anywhere. In AmE, it has never been used at all. Native BrE and AmE speakers, please correct me if I'm mistaken. As far as I know, it is used much less often in AmE, but it is heard once in a while even here. It is understood in all varieties of English, even by speakers who would not normally generate it in their own speech. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TestYourEars1/2/lwkgx/Post.htm#962576Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:28:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:962576kooyeenBut here the problem is different. The problem is not production, the problem is perception. I expect virtually all native speakers to be able to make a distinction in production : you can say NPR, or say MPR, and that's easy and only depends on whether you raise the tip of your tongue or not. What I don't know is how many native speakers are able to make a difference in perception : can they distinguish NPR from MPR when they hear them? And how easily? I think they should be able to distinguish them in some way, in some circumstances, otherwise the difference in production would be completely useless and wouldn't make sense. How would children be able to pick up a distinction they can't hear? So I expect native...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TestYourEars1/lwkgx/post.htm#961770Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:10:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:961770kooyeenThanks for the replies. Due to assimilation, One can produce MPR instead of NPR;one can hear MPR Another example: " S n P" is heard as SMP, and is produced as SMP instead of SNP. By the way, raindoctor, are you a native speaker with "native ears"? From North America, the UK, where? If you are not willing to tell it, forget these couple of lines. Anyway, I'll go straight to the point. What I'm trying to find out is how sensitive native speakers' ears are when assimilation of this kind is involved. I learned such kinds of assimilation are not automatic in English, unlike in Italian (In Italian, "un pesce" would always be pronounced "um pesce"). As far as I know, in English it...