Search results for 'tag:Vocabulary tag:Plurals' matching tags 'Vocabulary' and 'Plurals'

Re: Some problems with plural noun?

Avangi — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:39:27 GMT

Hi h & k, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS ! ! ! Thanks for joining us.

I guess we'd consider as irregular plurals, things like deer, deer; man, men; child, children; hoof, hooves.

"Vocabulary" can be either countable or uncountable. His English vocabulary comprises only a hundred words, but he has extensive vocabularies in French and German.

Improving vocabulary is a major goal of the new reading program.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: Some problems with plural noun?

Mr Wordy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:13:30 GMT

The plural of "vocabulary" is "vocabularies". This word follows the normal rules for forming plurals.

The other two that you mention are not "irregular plural nouns". They are called "uncountable nouns", and they do not have a plural form. If you search Google for "countable and uncountable nouns" then you will find lots of information. See, for example, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslcount2.html

Some problems with plural noun?

hugsandkissess — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:00:36 GMT

Ok! Is "vocabulary" a plural noun?

Vocabulary not Vocabularies

Can you please give a list of irregular plural nouns?

Furniture not Furnitures
Information not Informations

and so on...

conversation: mistakes

Hela — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:31:14 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please help me correct this sentence?

He has an appropriate knowledge and way of thinking that helps him have a sensible conversation.

These are my views:

vocabulary: a) is "appropriate" wrong here and should be replaced by "sufficiant" ? b) is "way of thinking" wrong here and should be replaced by "common sense" ? c) what verbs can be used with "conversation" : to have, lead, conduct, something else ?

grammar: a) is it possible to use the article before "appropriate knowledge" even though "knowledge" is uncountable ? b) should the verb "help" be in the singular or plural ?

Are there other mistakes ?

Regards

Re: EFFORTS WAS REPAID

Clive — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:53:20 GMT

Hi,

1. After bitter and unstable days and months, he was determined to not get discouraged and and his persevering efforts was repaid. Finally he became a famous actor.

- Is this natural to say?

'Was' is wrong, because 'efforts' is a plural word.

I'd also make a few improvements in style and vocabulary.

Efforts don't idiomatically get 'repaid'. Instead, efforts 'pay off', (ie pay you a result.)

1. During bitter and uncertain days and months, he was determined not to get discouraged, and his efforts and perseverance paid off. Finally, he became a famous actor.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: grammar questions

Mister Micawber — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:39:42 GMT

1) Are my sentences correct but with a different meaning? I didn't quite get the nuance between the 2 prepositions. Would you please explain the difference again?

a) "The plays had been / were performed THROUGHOUT the next ten years"-- many times /every year in that period
b) "He had acted / had been acting / acted/ DURING the next ten years" -- no indication of frequency of performance in that period

2) position of adverbs: which ones are correct English? Which ones are spoken and which ones are written?

(a) He PROBABLY wouldN'T have met him. -- informal
(b) He would PROBABLY NOT have met him.-- both

(d) He would PROBABLY have NEVER met him.-- both

e) He would PROBABLY NEVER have met him. -- both

3) negative past form of "I used do it"
a) I used not to do it -- primarily BrE
b) I did not use to do it -- primarily AmE ('didn't used to' also in use i BrE)

7) singular or plural:
a) the datE of birth and death is registered / inscribed-- avoid this one; it just creates a conundrum.
b) the datES of birth and death are registered -- OK

8) vocabulary + tense: Would you please tell me if these expressions are correct?
a) Tom feared / was afraid / was scared that that his body would be incinerated once he WAS dead. -- OK

b) To act out (= perform ?) a play
Othello was first ACTED OUT at the theatre in... -- OK

c) early in his career / when he justed started working = a ses dÃ©buts ? -- I don't speak Green.

d) does the word "play-performer" exist?-- If it does it should be eschewed. Use 'actor'.

grammar questions

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:14:21 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please help me with the following difficuties?

1) Are my sentences correct but with a different meaning? I didn't quite get the nuance between the 2 prepositions. Would you please explain the difference again?

a) "The plays had been / were (?) performed THROUGOUT / DURING the next ten years"
b) "He had acted / had been acting / acted (?) THROUGHOUT / DURING the next ten years"

2) position of adverbs: which ones are correct English? Which ones are spoken and which ones are written?

(a) He PROBABLY wouldN'T have met him.
(b) He would PROBABLY NOT have met him.

(d) He would PROBABLY have NEVER met him.

e) He would PROBABLY NEVER have met him.

3) negative past form of "I used do it"
a) I used not to do it
b) I did not use to do it

7) singular or plural:
a) the datE of birth and death is registered / inscribed (?)
b) the datES of birth and death are registered

8) vocabulary + tense: Would you please tell me if these expressions are correct?
a) Tom was scared that (?) / feared that his body would be insinerated once he WAS dead.

b) To act out (= perform ?) a play
Othello was first ACTED OUT at the theatre in...

c) early in his career / when he justed started working = a ses dÃ©buts ?

d) does the word "play-performer" exist?

A thousand thanks,
Hela

Re: Play Judo

Hoa Thai — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:21:38 GMT

Hi,

Thanks to those programs, my English is getting better. The narrators speak slowly, clearly, and precisely. My vocabulary chest is filling up gradually.

However, I wish I could watch series about relationship and interaction between family members or people in regular daily life. Members of my English club and a majority of students in the universities think they would have better feeling of the language and the culture of the native speakers by watching those shows.

I teach Vietnamese to foreigners here in Saigon. I can see their struggle with the language as I've been struggling with English. The problem is that when our brains are wired to patterns that are natural to us, it is very difficult to absorb what seemingly odd to our ears. Phrases that we don't know, we literally translate. Sometimes, I can feel the resistance from my students in accepting colloquial expressions. Once they understand a bit deeper, they try again searching in their own language for another equivalent, and another, and another ... And the more they try, the slower they acquire the language. Those who do not question early in the learning process often advance quicker. Once they get a hang of the language, they start question the details and become more attuned to its intricacies. Eventually, some even can be very innovative and surpass the majority of native speakers. From my experience, that is the reason why children acquire the language skills faster than adults do.

That said, teachers must work harder in helping learners. Simple Yes or No sometimes leads the students down a wrong road. Important to foreign language learners are examples and more examples. What you've posted about 'single/plural' or 'play Judo' are excellent.

All the best,
Hoa Thai

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:05:04 GMT

Forbes wrote:
Cool Breeze, your English is faultless!

I think that Mr P has hit the nail on the head. In English the complexity resides in the syntax. Many say that English has no "grammar" because you do not need to grapple with conjugations and declensions, but of course if it had no grammar it would just be soup.

I have been to Thailand many times. I have made a not very sucessful attempt to learn Thai, which is even more analytical than English.

Forbes, in one respect I am more British than you: I have also been to Thailand many times but have never bothered to try and learn the language. I have noticed that they never put an English noun in the plural and that there are some other local peculiarities.

MrP's comment about syntax makes sense to me as well.

Thank you for your comment regarding my English. I wish it were faultless! I think I'm just fairly good at fooling people into thinking it is better than it actually is. I achieve this by using mainly words and expressions I am familiar with, in other words, I use English I have seen or heard before. However, occasionally I step aside from the well-trodden path either inadvertently or on purpose because I feel imprisoned by the obligation or compulsion to sound 'natural'. Maybe I'm something of a nonconformist. For example, I know full well that native speakers like to place only in the same position as the adverbs of frequency (often, always, never etc.). I quite often place it elsewhere...

My word power in Finnish is from another planet compared with my English vocabulary. I would never dare to proofread a legal document written in English, for example. But since I don't make many mistakes in what I consider English grammar and I have a good ear that helps me avoid doubtful expressions, I often make an unwarrantedly favourable impression on the reader.

Cheers
CB

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers