Search results for 'tag:Tenses tag:Writing styles' matching tags 'Tenses' and 'Writing styles'

Re: since, ago

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:00:08 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:

Hi Goodman,

Maybe I should not touch your nerve again - You are so expressive and I am scared! (for your heart and for my embarrassment). Don't worry, I am all barks and I no bite!

However, I must present my thought to find out what is wrong with it. Here I come.

I havenât been myself since yesterday. Yesterday marks a complete past. I am fine with this
I havenât been myself since I met you. Met marks a complete past. Ditto!

Today is 11/22/2007. Two days ago means 11/20/2007, which marks a complete past. Thus, âI havenât been myself since 11/20/2007â is the same as âI havenât been myself since two days ago.â

Others may feel ok with this but it hurts my ears and probably hurts the earsof the teacher who taught me how to use proper English. She was invited to BeiJing University to teach English in the 80's. When her 5 years contract was finished, she came back to the state and was teaching in the ESL class I was in. If not for her, I most likely won't be able to rub elbows with the English experts here. Well, she was the one that taught me never to mix ago in present perfect situations. For your sentense, I would say "I haven't been myself for the last/ past two days".

That is where my brain becomes confused with your reasoning.

Now regarding your comment about native people might not be better than non-natives in using good English â I understand why you said that: the seemingly biased view causes pain to people who do not belong to the regarded circle. However, we must accept the fact that âperfection is the result of constant use.â (Of course, constantly use in a wrong way will form a bad habit). When ESL learners come to forums like this, with fresh learning, they want a confirmation of people who they trust to take them to the next plateau of knowledge; and they rely on native, know-best, English teachers. I am one of them! (not the teacher, but the learner - mind you) You are overly humble!. It is up to each learner to ask, validate, and ask again. Knowledge seekers are smart people, they will form their own opinion about a forum debate. My goodness! you read my mind. Finally, someone shares my light! And if a non-native English speaker like you can regularly give the information seekers sensible GOOD ENGLISH answers, I think you would establish a good image for yourself. I am not sure what to make of your last comments. But I can tell you this, establishing a good image for myself on this forum is probably "mission impossible" because the image I have created here is one that gets the darts thrown at it! The truth is, I am not the kind who relies on books but rather the kind who learn through media and interacting with others. I am still learning, refining and polishing my English. I make many mistakes and I am not shy saying it because I recognize mistakes allow me to see where I need to improve and remember not to repeat them.

Here is what Edward D Goodman, an excellent writer, editor, and a scholar in my eye, writes, â â¦ good English is a kind of snobbery, It is not standard English but the English of a minority who are likely to consider themselves superior, and are also likely to be considered superior by others. English that is good enough in one context may not be good enough in another, and thus good English amounts to savor faire, a touchstone of the snob. All of us fail to use it occasionally, and some of us fail to use it frequently. Those who fail infrequently look down on those who fail frequently; those who fail frequently either live in constant fear of embarrassing themselves or find some way of taking pride in their unvarnished expression. Those who fail infrequently make further distinctions among themselves; the famous grammarian H.W.Fowler observed, âAlmost every man is potentially a purist and a sloven at once to persons looking at him from a lower and a higher position â¦. than his own.ââ I don't quite grasp what is in his mind - but I sure want to climb the knowledge hill and find the pleasure in use the language,

I am still wondering why Clive though Anon was me! I take that as a complement for a uniqueness of my writing style, which I donât even know I have one.

Best to all,
Hoa Thai

Hi Hao,

Thank you for your post.

Maybe I should not touch your nerve again - I hope you are being humorous and not sarcastic You are so expressive and I am scared! (for your heart and for my embarrassment). Don't worry, I am all barks and no bite!

However, I must present my thought to find out what is wrong with it. Here I come.

I havenât been myself since yesterday. Yesterday marks a complete past. I am fine with this
I havenât been myself since I met you. Met marks a complete past. Ditto!

Today is 11/22/2007. Two days ago means 11/20/2007, which marks a complete past. Thus, âI havenât been myself since 11/20/2007â is the same as âI havenât been myself since two days ago.â

Others may feel ok with the use of "ago with present perfect, but it hurts my ears and probably hurts the ears of the teacher who taught me how to use proper English 20 plus years ago. She was invited to BeiJing University to teach English in the 80's. Many of her graduate students ended up in goverment assigments working as translators and interpretors in the U.N. When her 5 years contract was finished, she came back to the state and was teaching in the ESL class I was in. If not for her, I most likely won't be able to rub elbows with the English experts here. Well, she was the one that taught me never to mix ago in present perfect situations. For your sentense, I would say "I haven't been myself for the last/ past two days".

That is where my brain becomes confused with your reasoning.

Now regarding your comment about native people might not be better than non-natives in using good English â I understand why you said that: the seemingly biased view causes pain to people who do not belong to the regarded circle. However, we must accept the fact that âperfection is the result of constant use.â I couldn't have agreed more (Of course, constantly use in a wrong way will form a bad habit). When ESL learners come to forums like this, with fresh learning, they want a confirmation of people who they trust to take them to the next plateau of knowledge; and they rely on native, know-best, English teachers. I am one of them! (not the teacher, but the learner - mind you) You are overly humble!. It is up to each learner to ask, validate, and ask again. Knowledge seekers are smart people, they will form their own opinion about a forum debate. My goodness! you read my mind. Finally, someone shares my light! And if a non-native English speaker like you can regularly give the information seekers sensible GOOD ENGLISH answers, I think you would establish a good image for yourself. I am not sure what to make of your last comments. But I can tell you this, establishing a good image for myself on this forum is probably "mission impossible" because the image I have created here is one that gets the darts thrown at it! The truth is, I am not the kind who relies on books but rather the kind who learn through media and interacting with others. I am still learning, refining and polishing my English. I make many mistakes and I am not shy saying it because I recognize mistakes allow me to see where I need to improve and remember not to repeat them.

Here is what Edward D Goodman, an excellent writer, editor, and a scholar in my eye, writes, â â¦ good English is a kind of snobbery, It is not standard English but the English of a minority who are likely to consider themselves superior, and are also likely to be considered superior by others. English that is good enough in one context may not be good enough in another, and thus good English amounts to savor faire, a touchstone of the snob. All of us fail to use it occasionally, and some of us fail to use it frequently. Those who fail infrequently look down on those who fail frequently; those who fail frequently either live in constant fear of embarrassing themselves or find some way of taking pride in their unvarnished expression. Those who fail infrequently make further distinctions among themselves; the famous grammarian H.W.Fowler observed, âAlmost every man is potentially a purist and a sloven at once to persons looking at him from a lower and a higher position â¦. than his own.ââ I don't quite grasp what is in his mind - but I sure want to climb the knowledge hill and find the pleasure in use the language,

I am still wondering why Clive though Anon was me! I take that as a complement for a uniqueness of my writing style, which I donât even know I have one.

Re: Please revise my essay :)) thanks

julielai — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:11:38 GMT

Highlighted a few problems for you...

Isabella209 wrote:

Henri Rene Albert Guy de Maupassant was born __ (prep) August 5th, 1850 and died on July 6th, 1893. During the 19th century he was a very known (rephrase) French writer -- in fact, __ __ one of the modern masters of the art of the short story and has inspired many writers of the same genre from his time to the present. Guy de Maupassant's stories often represent (wording) the Franco-Prussian war and the innocent civilians who are affected by it. Maupassant is a modern (?) example of traditional French emotional realism; he relates his stories as though he had been caught in the act and was mentioning the details as they passed. Guy de Maupassantâs style is described as ~~being~~ simple and direct, occasionally humorous and ironical, his stories range from his interest in the emotional dilemma of all social classes to his obsession for women. (Please discuss this after you mention the war.)

~~Guy de Maupassant stories range from~~ ~~the short stories of only a few pages long to complete novels~~ (awkward -- stories range from short storiess...???). Like most of his work, his stories are told by a third person that seems to know it all. ~~But the result is that no one is there,~~ his writing style fools the reader but there is nothing to remind us of his presence. Further more, Maupassant merely describes the events of his stories and leaves the reader to determine the out come of each story. He lets the reader consider what is going to happened next in order to keep then interested during his stories. (check your spellings)
Throughout the 1880âs, Maupassant wrote about 300 short stories and six full length novels (Since you mention it here, I'm deleting the "stories range from" comment). Heâs style was a mixture of simple sentences, comedy, drama and every day life. In the short story â The Necklaceâ, Maupassant was able to tell a life long story in only a few pages ~~long~~. In such a small story, the narrator was (tense) able to portrait the life of Madame Loisel. ~~Even~~ he explains in close details ~~about~~ the events surrounding the ball, her marriage and also the numerous years of suffer after losing the necklace. Maupassant treats his female characters like children who need to be taught hard lessons regarding life. Guy de Maupassant is also known for his use of symbols to advance the theme of his stories. The main symbol in âThe Necklaceâ is the necklace itself. The necklace is representing the riches and arrogance around the world. Madame Loisel, represents a woman living in a common lifestyle of the nineteenth century, (New sentence, perhaps?) even thou she is beautiful she is still not satisfied with her life and she wants more. Her marriage is a symbolic marriage in the 19th century, when ~~during those times~~ appearances ~~used to~~ mattered the most.

Guy de Maupassant is recognized though the world as one of the masters of the short story. Maupassant also wrote poetry, three travel journals, six novels and a volume of plays. During 1880 to 1890, he produced some three hundred short stories in a single decade. With his unique writing style, he is known by writing what he knew best, the war of 1870, the life of government employees and the fashionable life of Paris. His short stories are still seen as a masterpiece because of their clarity and traditional simplicity.

Re: Why aren't there more Western movies like ''The Good, the Bad...

Jackson6612 — Tue, 15 May 2007 00:22:59 GMT

Stannum wrote:

Jackson, I feel compelled to take this opportunity to clear the air a little with those in authority and I thank you for giving me this space.

I have been writing solely in English for about 47 years during which time I have widely and eclectically read anything I could get my hands on. I lived two highly intense lives as a soldier and a cop which has left me with view of the world that is less than average and more than beige.

In English only forums I try to be lucid and precise but when discussing art with intelligence such as yours I shun such strictures.

Everybody who does not understand my word patterns is invited to ignore such posts.

I try to craft a small piece of art with each response. What is the point of reciting the words of a dead white male. I have my own words and my own writing style that is comprehensible to anyone with the wit to be interested in something like me and I am not interested in communicating with those of less with than that. This is a vast forum and there are writers of varying register covering the whole gamut of range from The Queen's veddy veddy proper to a Surfer's Slang.

Hi Stannum,

I do have some questions about your last post. But I would ask them later.

Sometimes one's words can tell us a lot about him. Your words tell me that somewhere inside you there is a poet. You have a poetic style of writing. That's a great thing. I'm not sugar coating my comments. If I don't like something, I do not comment on it. You view things through art. That's a hard thing. Not everyone has wit to appreciate or understand artistic view.

Yes, you have your own words. That's the reason in my prior posting I said that every time I read your post you make me use a dictionary. If someone is not able to understand your words, then he can ask you for further help. He can also ignore your post because he is at liberty to do so. As far as I am concerned, I would not call such a person a true learner who ignore someone's words. We should appreciate every little bit of help which we receive from others. Every person has a right to write in his own style. You have your own unique style. You first view your words through art, and then arrange them to form an artistic sentence. Well, this is not an easy thing to do.

Unique things are always hard to comprehend. Only a true man dares to face them when he comes across them. That said, you are also a good person with lots of brains. I wish you good health and happiness. Take care.

Kind regards, Jackson

Re: Why aren't there more Western movies like ''The Good, the Bad...

Stannum — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:23:19 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
Hi Stannum,

G'day Jackson

Jackson6612 wrote:
John Travolta is a good actor but not that good as Clint Eastwood. John Travolta cannot act like Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood's dialogue delivery is adorable.

This is highly debatable. It can be argued that Travolta has played a wide range of characters whereas Eastwood played Eastwood with very little deviation from the flint eyed avenger with one fist of steel and the other of bone.

Jackson6612 wrote:
Besides that John Travolta does not do any action by riding horse.

Now I may understand some of your point.

You may be wondering about the demise of The Western as a popular art form. You are right. The cycle has passed and now The Western has been replaced by police and crime shows which follow the plot line of The Western pretty faithfully. If you look at an old episode of The Lone Ranger you will see the template for the modern one hour cop show with the renegade cop hiding behind his mask of indifference or anger or drunkenness or broken relationships or phobias but this maverick cop always has one assistant or colleague who understands them. Think of The X Files or Medium.

Jackson6612 wrote:
Stannum, I must say something here. Your writing style is superb. And you do make me use a dictionary whenever I read your posting.

Thank you. Your questions about my answers return the compliment.

Jackson, I feel compelled to take this opportunity to clear the air a little with those in authority and I thank you for giving me this space.

In English only forums I try to be lucid and precise but when discussing art with intelligence such as yours I shun such strictures.

Everybody who does not understand my word patterns is invited to ignore such posts.

Jackson6612 wrote:
I could not understand the following sentences:

May I congratulate your bravery and honour in making such a statement.

Far too often my writing is passed off as gibberish simply because the reader does not grasp my intention at first blush (at first glance, the first youthful impression). Thank you for understanding that there is something in my words rather than sending me a snippy little PM to pierce my soul.

Jackson6612 wrote:
All of the CSI spawn is suffused with super cool flint eyed avengers.

Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) is the modern day Western. It involves specialist police and agents who investigate crime after some horrific tragedy. Cheap writers choose highly emotive subjects to add gravitas to their shallow artistic talents.

Spawn is a reference to the vast number of spin off shows that have been spawned like frogs spawning vast numbers of tadpoles and then leaving them mindlessely to their own devices. Spawn has a derrogatory air about as in, 'Satan's Spawn!'. Spawn is seldom a compliment.

The Collins dictionary;

suffuse vb (tr usually passive) to spread or flood through or over (something): the evening sky was suffused with red. [C16: from Latin suffusus overspread with]

Super cool is the epitome of style. Eastwood and Newman and McQueen embody super cool.

Flint eyed is the hard stare that makes the eyes look so hard. It is also called The Thousand Yard Stare when someone like Eastwood just stares straight through you.

Avengers are the characters who seek vengence for whatever reason. An eye for an eye sort of blokes.

Jackson6612 wrote:
David Caruso has carved a career with a squint.

David Caruso is a contemporary actor playing in CSI Miami who has a very limited acting range but is cute and his most adventurous acting foray is to squint a lot. He squints to look tough. He squints to look angry. He squints to look happy. He squints to look to look sad. He squints when he is shot. He squints when he gets a back rub. He squints when he eats a sandwitch.

Jackson6612 wrote:
Please explain to me the above sentences. Is David Caruso a squint?

Have a squiz (look) above.

Jackson6612 wrote:
Take care.

Best wishes, Jackson

Thanks mate,

Same to you.

Stannum

Re: Can you please check my essay Plz PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

nona the brit — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:02:04 GMT

I do hope that your teacher didn't give you that question as it gives me serious doubts about their English ability! You can't refer to people as 'it' for a start, and there are lots of other errors.

You have a nice natural and fluent writing style. You just need to be a little more careful with your verb tenses sometimes and plan your sentence ends/starts more carefully. Also, Anil is a proper noun, so always needs a capital letter.

Re: Simultaneous or at the same time?? Or the absence of both

Goodman — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:49:41 GMT

As I had indicated, I opted to use past perfect for the explained reason. Of course, In many cases, simple past tense would just get the idea across fine. Itâs a matter of personal preference, or perhaps a writing style as long as itâs within the logical and grammatical confine of English.

Thatâs just my own opinionâ¦

Re: Present perfect tense question

Goodman — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:07:44 GMT

Umâ¦.Where do I begin? Well, I am almost sure one or two of you on this forum may have already heard the story before. As Iâd said many time before, learning English is much harder for Asians than Europeans for the simple fact that Asian langauges are not made up of alphabets, except Vietnamese. For Asian born Chinese, the movement of their tongue and jaw has been trained into the muscles from speaking their native dialects. Itâs difficult to re-train them to move in the ways English speaking demands them of moving which in turn causes pronunciation problems for them.

So for a young immigrant who never learned the basics of English, it would seem extremely impossile to learn this language, as least for a period about 2 years. I was 17 when I arrived Calif. But not until 2 years later that I really seriously spent a lot of time studying. The way I learned English is not what you would call academic. In fact, I donât have a college degree because I had to work right away to survive. I couldnât go to regular high school for I wonât understand anyway. My existence for next 5 years was working in the Chinese restaurant at night and went to ESL classes during the day. After I felt confident with my English, I enrolled into a technical college to take the next step, not knowing if I could make it through. I can confortablly now tell you, if you had enough will in you, you can conquer almost anyting. Through my experience, I found out if you are humble to learn people will teach you. Through the years, Iâve kept up with this attitude of practicing what Iâd learned and refining it.

Iâd also like to shar ewith you that television, up till today, has been my best learning tool. It helped me build my speech patterns and word usage by listening and visuals. I am still trying to keep improving my written skills by emulating others writing style. Thatâs why I want to do what little I can to help others because I know how confusing, depressing and frustrating it can be to become fluent in English. To answer your question about proficiency, I would say this, I feel condifident about my English and my ability to express my thoughts clearly. Whether my English is better than native American is not really imporatant to me. Hope my story didn't bore you to tears!

Re: Please assess this essay!

julielai — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:17:12 GMT

Every English learner has their (agreement) own difficulties in learning this language. The difficulties differ from individual to individual. Someone may be in deep trouble of (awkward) using proper words in writing essays while ~~someone~~ others see listening as their major obstacle ~~needed to overcome~~ (redundant). In my opinion, writing seems to be the hardest skill to grasp alongside (if it is alongside, then shouldn't they be equally hard? hmmm) the second hardest one: listening.

First, let consider writing. When I write something in English, usually an essay, my poor vocabulary has limited my ability to express what I actually mean. Sometimes, I donât know the word to depict what I see, hear and feel, or how to write things naturally like an Englishman do (agreement). Using a dictionary is not likely to help much, because if I use any word that I found (tense) in the dictionary, it just leads to a fact that: (wording) my writing or essay is completely weird and become (agreement) nothing other than a mess of strange expressions and irrelevant words. Even when I use an English dictionary, and I have checked the word definition well, ~~but~~ I still find it hard to opt (wording) which words to use accurately. As you know, in English, there are some terms that are ~~fixed to be~~ used only in some contexts, if you express by another way, it just likes baby-writing (what do you mean?). Therefore, writing a paper or an essay are harder than ~~just sitting back,~~ (you're talking as if "sitting back" is an option alongside reading and listening) reading an (agreement) enjoyable books or listening to your favourite English songs. In those case, you adsorb passively what are imparted to you. In contrast, when you write, you need to do brainstorming and create (you coin new words?) your own words and write down your own thoughts. Certainly, this task is required not only ideas ~~to write~~ but also something else: Write ornately (wording) or formally? Which perspectives to stand on? How to arrange ideas well? What point
~~needed~~ to be emphasized or neglected? Even when you use words, terms or expressions approximately (wording), ~~but~~ a poor ideas performance (what do you mean?) or an unfamiliarity of relevant English writing style still leads to failure.

Second, consider (awkward) listening. Because you donât use English as your mother tongue (connect these two sentences). So an unfamiliarity of listening English people talking is no surprise. Moreover, I canât concentrate much when listening, especially listening to a bad English tape or a long and technical conversation. Sometimes, this obstacle stems from other matters (wording). Usually, I hear the words clearly but need a little time to remember what it (agreement) means. Additionally, I pronounce some words inaccurately so when hearing the right pronunciations, I almost canât recognize them. But in my opinion, this problem can be easily dealt with. The key to be successful is very simple: just listen as much as I can and the progress can be by leaps and bounds. This task is a continuing (awkward)one and it does take time to get improved. I need over 2 month to make progress in listening. Now I focus on listening to technical or professional issues. They are far more difficult than just daily conversations.

On the whole, I see writing and listening as the two most difficult skill (agreement) to be made fluent (awkward). Other skills like reading and speaking donât bother me much because Iâm rather confident with those skills.