Search results for 'tag:Translation tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Translation' and 'Difference between'

How to put English into our own language

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:39:08 GMT

When you are learning English, you find it not clever to put an English sentence, word for word, into your own language. Take the sentence âHow do you do?â as an example. If you look up each word in the dictionary, one at a time, what is your translation? It must be a wrong sentence in your own language.

Languages do not just have different sounds; they are different in many ways. Itâs important to master the rules for word order in the study of English, too. If the speakers put words in a wrong order, the listeners canât understand the speakerâs sentence easily. Sometimes when the order of words in an English sentence is changed, the meaning of the sentence changes. But sometimes the order is changed, but the meaning of the sentence doesnât change. Letâs see the difference between the two pairs of sentences.

âShe only likes apples.â

âOnly she likes apples.â

âI have seen the film already.â

âI have already seen the film.â

When you are learning English, you must do your best to get the spirit of the language and use it as the English speaker does.

Re: Is there a difference between a word for word translation and literal translation?

Philip — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:50:29 GMT

1. I'm not aware of a term for the difference between the two. Just use the two terms.

2. You might say 'liberal', 'free' or 'up-to-date/modern/vernacular'.

Is there a difference between a word for word translation and literal translation?

Jackson6612 — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:39:07 GMT

Is there a difference between a word for word translation and literal translation?

And what is called the translation that gives the general meaning in a more natural way?

Re: Barn or granary? wich is more common?

noddyy — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:45:56 GMT

Thank you very much, because I searched for the translation from portuguese 'celeiro' to english and they translated as granary, though I never had seen that word before, well barn I have seen before related to a farm..

Re: day off ?

Monalisatuan — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:12:33 GMT

Thank you Hoa Thai ,

But I don't think you understand exactly what I want to ask here . I just want to make sure whether or not these two sentences are grammatically correct and whether or not they sound natural to native speakers .As regards the meanings , I think it's quite clear . Of course , there is a distinct difference between " we are entitled to take Monday off as a comp day " and " I will have the next day off instead / in lieu / as a comp day ".

What I want to learn here is how a native speaker says in such a situation because most Asian students like us tend to do word-for-word translation which sometimes sounds odd to native speakers .

The main problem here is that I want to know exactly whether or not I can use interchangeably in lieu , instead , as a comp day , as a acompensatory day in the above-mentioned .

Your clarification on this issue is highly appreciated.

Best wishes

Re: Believing in God too much is a superstition?

simplyblessedwithlove — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:40:03 GMT

Stannum wrote:
Chaskarmukund wrote:
Let me ask a question. Why Muslilms believe in Allah and Why Christians believe in Jesus Christ
I think that it is merely a translation thing.

When you get down to it there is very little difference between Christianity and Islam.

Stannum

I beg to differ.

Re: What is the difference between "Talk"(VERB) and "Speak"(VERB)

Hoa Thai — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:53:06 GMT

Hi,

When I first learned English, hear and listen were clear to me. The later requires the attentiveness of a listener. However, talk and speak ran my teacher in circle. He took an English-Vietnamese dictionary and told us to stick with the translation and then he failed to reason why some English sentences we presented to him begged for different interpretation! Today seeing this question again, I dearly miss him for the pain he went through trying to give us a bit of his knowledge. Therefore, I thought maybe this is a good opportunity for me to go through what he went through.

Please allow me to deduct slowly.

1. Talk and speak are both voice related, so sound making cannot be contributed solely to either one.

2. We can attach preposition of or about to both talk and speak. Therefore, neither word owns the right to content.

3. When we speak or talk, we could be interrupted for questioning. Of course, we can also attach preposition to or with to both of them Therefore, neither word owns the right to interaction either.

4. When a baby utters the first sound that is similar to a word we know, we excitedly say, âs/he speaks.â When the baby can string a few words together, in responding to the surrounding stimulating environment, either to a toy or to people, we claim, âs/he talks.â Talk seems to win the conversational aspect (two-way communication goes with talk albeit the listener might not say a word â uni-directional delivery goes with speak).

5. We speak a language; we donât talk a language unless we mean knowing how to speak in (e.g., talk French â idiom). Again, in this case, speak is confined to the speaker (i.e., one-way).

6 When we phone people (i.e., we initiate the connection):
- Most often we donât know whether the person we phone is available or not, we say, âIs â¦ there?â, or politely âMay / Could I speak to â¦â (again, one-way).-
- However, if we yearn for a conversation / an exchange, we ask, âMay I talk to â¦â (two-way).

7. When we suggest people to listen to a speech, we might say,â listen to his talkâ but virtually none âlisten to his speak.â Talk seems to require more attention than speak. It requires the listeners to connect, to feel, to understand.. (one-way delivery, two-way sharing).

8. âSpeaker of the houseâ not âTalker of the houseâ- (uni-voice).

Inference:

talk: bi-directional communication.
speak: uni-directional communication.

Cheers,
Hoa Thai

Re: The Callan Method

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:29:15 GMT

this is an answer to a number of the posts above. i taught the callan method in italy for a year 10 years ago and for a while in london. pros and cons? you can say that again...

but i don't want to repeat what has already been said. book one works quite well, although it is outdated to say the least. however, i do not believe that the callan method is intrinsically bad at teaching the higher levels; the difference between book one and the following books is more that callan never wrote book one himself; he ripped it off from a far more skilled collaborator of his 50 years ago. from book 2 to book 7 we witness a slow slide into the pig-minded delirium of a frustrated and self-obsessed sad little man. and i believe much of his life-long paranoid self-guardedness stems from the underlying knowledge that he has become famous for a method that he did not invent, and then had the presumption to be able to develop to higher levels without the slightest grounding in english language or grammar. and that's part of the reason that he wants inexperienced teachers (apart from paying a pittance!) he doesn't want critics!

we might say that the callan method has proved successful not because of callan, but despite callan. i do know people who have learnt well using the callan method, and so i thought, if someone so ignorant and presumptuous can teach people with these morbid, racist, outdated and generally highly insensitive questions from the upper books ("do students in your country help with the grain harvest?" c'mon... "Why do men go bald?" try asking that to a class of three prematurely bare-headed students and then coax them into saying that it's because of the tight headbands around their - '50s style - hats... please!) then what could i do, believing myself to be more mentally stable than callan and having a masters in italian and a degree in lingustistics?

while also working in other teaching settings - communicative teaching, univerisity teaching, company courses etc. - i have been developing my own question and answer method, designed specifically for the italian market (i don't intend to try and conquer the entire english-learning world) so as to exploit the underlying similarities between english and italian in terms of transformation, not translation - and this is something that the communicative method has never done because it requires bilingual teachers...far too expensive! both methods have always been guilty of thinking that it's better to pay teachers badly, and take whatever washes up, stick a book in their hand and shove them into the classroom. paying peanuts and getting monkeys is as true with callan as any other method. there are good and bad callan-style teachers: the good ones are those that use the method to teach, not those who are used by the method to prance around like nutty copies of robin callan...

my method uses modern, "international" english, deals with everyday and common situations in which students can then put the language into practice by phone or when travelling, and aims to offer space for open-ended answers even at a lower level. like the michel thomas method, it uses a far more relaxed environment than callan: in my school, we have chairs you don't mind sitting in for an hour after a day's work, lighting that doesn't give everyone a headache etc. i think people learn better if they are relaxed, but this doesn't mean they have to fall asleep or not be stimulated: input yes, but not military barking. oh, and max 5 students - i have taught with 14 in london and it's a joke. they might as well go and listen to passers-by in oxford street. the feedback i have had so far has been very positive. i invite other disillusioned callan teachers to stop moaning and try and do something better if they also feel that the method is a rolls royce engine in a battered ford escort..

so, in a word: the callan method - good method, shame about the callan. callan hit on something very powerful but was far too incompetent to capitalise on it and far too conceited to think it would be better to collaborate on a modern elaboration of the method with others. good bilingual teachers in a monlingual teaching environment who have understood the real method behind the madness should do what they can to put together something new that really works in the place and time they're in!

ps. by the way, does the london school still have those big-brother style microphones in the classrooms to make sure the teachers are doing their job? unbelieeeevable.

Re: Course Description for University

Clive — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:51:08 GMT

Hi again,

Actually, it is not my own composition but a translation. So I think I should keep some words that the original author wrote. I've put them in bold. Can you tell me whether they are awkward or not? OK, I'll just look at those.

And after I read your comment, I found the word "Replicability" instead of "Recrudescence". Yes, much better.

Replicability is a very important scientific concept that essentially means that the outcome of a particular study will occur again if the study is replicated by another investigator. A scientific finding that cannot be replicated is immediately discredited.
(From http://www.cognitive-aptitude-assessment-software.com/Glossary/Replicability.html)

Best wishes, Clive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communication of Science & Technology

Course Description

The overall objective of the course is to attain a fundamental understanding of science communication. In modern society, since scientific technology influences everyday life in many ways, people pay close attention to science and the application of science OK but have difficulty understanding scientific advances. This gives science communication an important role. One difference between science and other fields such as politics, economics, social studies is the replicability. Another difference is related to predictability. The opinion of one scientist should be supported by replicating or verifying Use the noun forms - replication and verification by other scientists. In this way, because OK science differs from other fields, science has different needs of science communication. We will examine the characteristics of science communication, and the methods of study of science communication. We will also look at the effective communication of knowledge about science and technology, especially via new media forms of the 21st century and the characteristics of technology. We will study the nature of science news, journalists who specialize in science news, and what makes a science journalist differ from a general journalist. We will end by practicing subject selection and composition.

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

And how about "Science & Culture"? Is it okay?

Re: Course Description for University

Ssppilove — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:01:33 GMT

Hello, Clive.

Thank you for your help.

Actually, it is not my own composition but a translation. So I think I should keep some words that the original author wrote. I've put them in bold. Can you tell me whether they are awkward or not?

And after I read your comment, I found the word "Replicability" instead of "Recrudescence".

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

Communication of Science & Technology

Course Description

The overall objective of the course is to attain a fundamental understanding of science communication. In modern society, since scientific technology influences everyday life in many ways, people pay close attention to science and the application of science but have difficulty understanding scientific advances. This gives science communication an important role. One difference between science and other fields such as politics, economics, social studies is the replicability. Another difference is related to predictability. The opinion of one scientist should be supported by replicating or verifying by other scientists. In this way, because science differs from other fields, science has different needs of science communication. We will examine the characteristics of science communication, and the methods of study of science communication. We will also look at the effective communication of knowledge about science and technology, especially via new media forms of the 21st century and the characteristics of technology. We will study the nature of science news, journalists who specialize in science news, and what makes a science journalist differ from a general journalist. We will end by practicing subject selection and composition.

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

And how about "Science & Culture"? Is it okay?