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

Re: PLEASE HELP ME CLARIFY THIS OBSTACLE

Clive — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:44:31 GMT

Hi,

I still have a confusing word and not quite sure which word to use in this sentence.

My MINI-THESIS aims to assess the potential of the cooperatives who want to sell their processed-garlic products to the supermarket. Somewhere, you need to explain what kind of potentiality you are assessing. eg Is it related to product quality? Product quantity? Reliability of supply? Future growth?

Overall operation along their supply chain is ~~are~~ involved. Is this your explanation of what kind of potential you are concerned with? You can't really speak of somebody's 'potential for overall operation' without giving more details,as I have suggested.

So, I wonder which appropriate preposition and vocabulary should be used to fulfill the sentence.

Please give me an advise. The sentence is as below (RED BOLD).

with regard
Golf

Thailand
Potentiality on Garlic Supply Chain Management to Supermarket of The Fang District Garlic Producers Cooperative, Chiang Mai Province
We usually use the noun form 'potential' instead of 'potentiality'. We speak of somebody's 'potential for . . . '

You have too many nouns, no verb, and not enough clarity in the title above. How about this?

The potential of The Fang District Garlic Producers' Cooperative to supply garlic to the supermarket, with particular emphasis on their supply chain.

Have you considered phrasing it as a question? eg
Is the supply chain operated by the Fang District Garlic Producers' Cooperative adequate to supply garlic to the supermarket?

Best wishes, Clive

PLEASE HELP ME CLARIFY THIS OBSTACLE

golf_mflu — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:16:41 GMT

Thanks for your time >>> SORRY FOR MY LANGUAGE IF IT IS UNSUITABLE

I still have a confusing word and not quite sure which word to use in this sentence.

My MINI-THESIS aims to assess the potential of the cooperatives who want to sell their processed-garlic products to the supermarket.

Overall operation along their supply chain are involved.

So, I wonder which appropriate preposition and vocabulary should be used to fulfill the sentence.

Please give me an advise. The sentence is as below (RED BOLD).

with regard
Golf

Thailand
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Potentiality on Garlic Supply Chain Management to Supermarket of

The Fang District Garlic Producers Cooperative, Chiang Mai Province

Re: Parts of speech of "for"

Clive — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:35:34 GMT

Hi,
Ok, I have this snooty math teacher that is constantly correcting people's grammar skills. It's funny at times in an annoying way. Anyways, I had vocabulary words up in my class and I had the word "target", with the definition "something you aim for". Now he brought up the point that I ended the phrase with a preposition, which is entirely true. After explaining that it was informal English, "shorthand", in other words, I explained to him that in the sentence, "for" could not be considered a preposition because it did not have an object following it. Therefore, it had to be considered an adverb. I then looked up the word in the dictionary and was surprised to see that it was listed as a preposition and a conjunction, but not an adverb. So who's right, the dictionary or myself?

The dictionary. In your example, i'for' is a preposition.

You would do better to challenge your math teacher's idea that you should never end a sentence with a preposition.
Many knowledgeable people do not accept this so-called rule.
Winston Churchill is supposed to have made fun of this rule by saying
"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put"
in order, jokingly, to avoid saying the obviously more reasonable
"This is the sort of English which I will not put up with."

Ask your math teacher which of these two sentences he prefers.

Good luck, Clive

Parts of speech of "for"

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:15:29 GMT

Ok, I have this snooty math teacher that is constantly correcting people's grammar skills. It's funny at times in an annoying way. Anyways, I had vocabulary words up in my class and I had the word "target", with the definition "something you aim for". Now he brought up the point that I ended the phrase with a preposition, which is entirely true. After explaining that it was informal English, "shorthand", in other words, I explained to him that in the sentence, "for" could not be considered a preposition because it did not have an object following it. Therefore, it had to be considered an adverb. I then looked up the word in the dictionary and was surprised to see that it was listed as a preposition and a conjunction, but not an adverb. So who's right, the dictionary or myself?

Looking for some tips and/or curriculum suggestions

mikesusangray — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:50:11 GMT

Hi all!

I've been giving English conversation lessons to a theology professor for about a year now. He's getting on in the years - a couple years from retirement - and his primary goal has been just to get his spoken English going a little stronger. His mother tongue is French but he's been teaching at a German language university for many years.

I'd like to add some more specific inputs to our lessons but I can't seem to find the right material. His passive skills are excellent - he reads widely and with perfect comprehension in his field - and he can communicate quite understandably. He is a linguistics specialist and can grasp any concept about the language immediately. I brought along Cambridge Advanced Grammar in Use and he could plow through a chapter in five minutes with perfect conceptual comprehension.

However, he also continues to make very simple errors - for example, he has trouble choosing between present simple and continuous or often uses the present tense for past events. Sentence order tends to get wander hither and yon while definite and indefinite articles come and go with the tide. (Prepositions are a problem too, but I won't beat him to hard there - prepositions are difficult in any new language.) In many cases his mistakes are typical of French or German speech patterns.

One other limitation is that he enjoys the weekly lessons (a good hour), but doesn't have much time to study in between.

Right now we spend about 15 minutes reading a chapter from Advanced Grammar in Use and about 45 minutes talking about just about anything under the sun, while I take notes and show him problems under the categories Pronunciation/Articles & Prespositions/Word Order/Other Grammar/Vocabulary/Idioms. However, I don't think the work book is a good choice - particularly since he doesn't do the homework - and it seems like he isn't making very good progress with his typical problem patterns - though he greets them like old friends when I point them out.

Any tips here?

using photoalbums from the net-ideas for teachers

linguaprof — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:24:40 GMT

My tips:
Look at the photoalbum: http://picasaweb.google.com/Sean.Pigg/MimsAndSeanSHouse
With an elementary/pre-intermediate student these pictures could be used to teach:
1. The vocabulary of house and living.
2. Present simple by asking: What do they usually do in this room/ place? (interrogative, negative too)
3. Present continuous, by using the pictures with people, asking What are they doing?, etc.(interrogative, negative too)
4. The use of There is, There are. (interrogative, negative too)
5. Countable, uncountable nouns- much and many- Many chairs, much space
6. Prepositions of place.
7. Comparatives and superlatives- This room is bigger than that one. This is the largest room., etc.

These are just a few ideas. Have fun!
Peter

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:30:34 GMT

As a native English speaker (well perhaps not entirely native, I was born in Russia and immigrated to the U.S. at the tender age of 7) I would have to say that apart from the obviously difficult aspects of the English language such as tenses, an unorthodox phonetic system employed in the language and infuriating exceptions for just about every single rule, the two most puzzling features are the Verb+Participle+Preposition combinations and the sheer vastness of the vocabulary. Observe the former...

come+up+with

come+down+with

come+foward+with

come+out+for

come+down+to

Five different constructions which would be clear as day to any native speaker, are nevertheless mind-boggling to someone who is learning the language. Notice how they all start with "come", and then imagine that sort of illogical word-scrambling applied to every verb. Daunting, isn't it? Don't know how to break it to you folks, but I haven't even scratched the surface.

Now as to the latter, I am more than happy to have dictionary.com present proof of this phenomenon in my stead. Let's take a look at the word "jump". I mean, how many possible synonyms could there be for this word? Well, one simple search can help us find out. Here's the link:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/jump

40 entries for the first definition alone. FORTY. Forty different ways to say jump. But when you break it down, do all 40 words have the same meaning? Of course not! Nosedive means to jump into something headfirst, as in a pool of water or (if you're very unfortunate) onto a hardwood floor. To spring is to jump up energetically, with an almost almighty "lurch" (another word for jump right there :P) whereas to "bob" means to make jumping motions without every actually taking your feet off the ground. The list goes on and on. No other language I'm familiar with has such variety when it comes to synonyms, be it for seemingly uncomplicated actions or deep philosophical concepts.

Although English is my native language, I am also a nearly native speaker of Russian (I give credit to my parents for preserving the language of the "motherland" and passing it on to me) and fluent in German. I find Russian to be an incredibly expressive language with just as many (if not more) nuances as English, and its ability to convey feelings of dislike, anger or downright hateful fervor (i.e. swearing) is, in my experience, unmatched. German is an incredibly logical language, and once grammar constructs are mastered, relatively straightforward in its application. Mastering German grammar is a challenge however, and word order is an utter nuisance in some situations.

Just my two cents.

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:21:28 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

First,thank you for the compliments.It means to me.
Excuse me for misinterpreting your message it was not intentional.I'm glad we agree on this point,but it would also be ok with me if we do not.There is always room for every sort of opinion.I think that a native english-speaking person would say in this context like: "nothing is written in stone".Smiley.Thanks again.
I agree too on "<<<Furthermore, I try to understand things logically and find explanations for every problem so that I won't have to simply memorize things! ",and I would add here that it is exactly what grammarians do.They establish logic i.e regularities in the language to ease memorizing vocabulary.

Hello Goodman,

I agree with your point of view.I specially subscribe to the part "..learners must in time learn to develop a balance in learning." But also I add that the balance is not a clearcut concept and is not universal.What makes optimal balance is dependent on the learning situation.I will cite here my own discerning thought(smiley) from previous post : "So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations".So the balances are different.For example,although we agree on the matter in general,maybe Ant 222 and I disagree whether this question(what is the form of "where"..)is necessary knowledge to strike that optimal balance.
I think that this issue is incredibly complex,have so many different aspects,and is influenced by so many factors,that you can never say to somebody what is the right way like : "Dude,follow the road to the junction and then turn left..".or "scramble three eggs,put a spoonful of sugar and then mix until your arm is numbed..".Maybe closest to the truth would be if we say that everything matters.But one should say as the following to it that it is important to set apart what is consequential from inconsequential(or less consequential),in his/her learning of the language.And that is also a scientific method of acquiring knowledge.That is,grammarians analyze the language and then synthetize it in some convenient chunks and the learner should understand the gist of it and use it as a construction on which he/she will build his/her vocabulary.Still,a learner can be close to mastering that gist of the grammar and find himself in a situation that his vocabulary is awkward,funny or unintelligible,or at least that he leave the listener with the impression of talking with Queen Elizabeth when he wanted to sound like the frontmen of 50 cents or vice versa,or most probably neither of that options,but he wanted just a regular chat.There is a lot sweat until we esl learners grasp the language so well to avoid such things.Besides,there is always question what is his/her learning objective.The question of utilizing is also a broad concept.If you learn because you need to know english only to communicate with your customers on the local market then less will do,i.e:

Buy oranges.Two oranges for twenty cents.I give one free when you buy two.

As to the sale,this is a quite good level of utilization.Whether the customer will utilize the oranges is up to oranges,some preposition more or less will not make difference.
The opposite extreme of a personal ambition would be to learn with ambition to write bestselers or so.And on that scale of ambition you could line up EFL learners as well.With my "not so good" english I'm able to make a difference between speakers which language is too rich with "and" and with too many "so",along with "uh" every now and then,and those who speak smoothly.The first may ruin the best idea with such language and former can make some stupidity sounds groundbreaking.

Best regards and thanks for the discussions

Velimir

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