Search results for 'Speak english'

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

Avangi — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:28:39 GMT

Anonymous
If you say a situation or person is hollow, you could mean they have no real ...

Hi, I'm not sure why you group a "thing-word" in with all these "people-words." The plural post-reference for a singular term is only used to avoid the awkward gender issue. In English, things don't have genders (except ships) so the problem disappears. (Ships are always female.)

"Someone left their coat in the car," is unquestionably okay for casual or conversational use. You can't be faulted for saying "Someone left his or her coat in the car," but you might be given a strange look. In formal writing, opinions vary. Unless you know your readers' preferences, to be safe you could stick with "his or her." Personally, I'd say "his coat," unless I were strictly in the company of ladies.

You might do some searches on the site to get other opinions.

- A.

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

unixfanatic — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:48:31 GMT

This is a common mistake grammatically even among native English speakers. However, it is technically correct to use a singular pronoun, even in the case you described.

Whether you want an apple or an orange, it will taste good.

In your example, you juxtaposed "situation" and "person". While possible, this is clumsy to implement, as, to be completely accurate, you would have to say,

If you say a situation or person is hollow, you could mean that it or he has no real ...

Obviously this is not good. Much better would be,

If you say a situation is hollow, you may mean it isn't important. If you say a person is hollow, you may mean the same thing.

This is redundant, but it does get the point across effectively.

Re: A question about tense usage in "since clause"

Mr Wordy — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:08:34 GMT

Viceidol
"It's a long time since he lived there." suggests "He does not live there now.(He lived there.)",

Roughly correct, but omits to say that he left a long time ago (I suppose they take that as being obvious).

Viceidol
"It's a long time since he has lived there." suggests "He still lives here now. (He has lived there for a long time.)"

Nonsense. If your book really does say this then I recommend you throw it away and get a different one.

(But I notice you say "I didn't translate it very well". So, the explanation is not written in English? Is it possible that you're still mistranslating it?)

Re: A question about tense usage in "since clause"

Viceidol — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:26:02 GMT

Mr Wordy

Viceidol
It's a long time since he lived there. (It suggests "He does not live there for a long time.")
It's a long time since he has lived there. (It suggests "He lives there for a long time.")
Are you sure that you copied those right-hand sentences correctly? Neither of them is good English, except, unusually, in the context of a present-tense narrative, which I can't imagine is the intention here (and in any case would not lead to correct interpretations of the sentences in italics).

I'm sorry that I didn't translate it very well, but the book says: "It's a long time since he lived there." suggests "He does not live there now.(He lived there.)", and "It's a long time since he has lived there." suggests "He still lives here now. (He has lived there for a long time.)"

Re: A question about tense usage in "since clause"

Mr Wordy — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:55:15 GMT

Viceidol
It's a long time since he lived there. (It suggests "He does not live there for a long time.")
It's a long time since he has lived there. (It suggests "He lives there for a long time.")

Are you sure that you copied those right-hand sentences correctly? Neither of them is good English, except, unusually, in the context of a present-tense narrative, which I can't imagine is the intention here (and in any case would not lead to correct interpretations of the sentences in italics).

To me, there is no material difference in meaning between the two sentences in italics. Both mean that he used to live there, but he left a long time ago and does not live there now.

More generally, though, the simple past means that we're referring to a single instance of whatever activity it is, and the perfect tense tends to suggest several instances or a pattern of behaviour. This difference is of little importance with the verb "lived", but in other cases it can be more apparent. For example,

It's a long time since he's visited America. -- Suggests that he previously visited America several times, perhaps regularly, but that this pattern of behaviour stopped a long time ago.

It's a long time since he visited America. -- Means that it's been a long time since that last specific visit. (Note, though, that it's quite possible to use this form even if he used to visit regularly, because there's always a last specific visit.)

CATALOG NAMES - ADJECTIVES

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:55:23 GMT

Hi,

In a catalog that contains clothing items, I happen to come across names in Korean but has English words (?). I think the company that sell the clothing items is based overseas and to cater to Koreans who don't necessarily know English, they seem to have written the names in Korean (if you know what I mean). Anyway, here are some names:

feminine shirt dress

out-pocket, roll-up dress

red jersey one-piece

big-frame sunglasses

slim knit dress

floral-green silk dress

I have punctuated the names as I see fit but I am not sure if I did it correctly, especially the number 1 name.

This is somewhat related to this topic. What I have noticed is that some adjective uses have changed.

big, plastic-frame (plastic-framed??) glasses
tall, three-story (three-storied) building
big wool (woolen??) shirt
blue-color (blue-colored??) shirt

Which ones should I follow?

Re: These ones and those ones

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:25:00 GMT

Anonymous
It is true that "ones," according to proper grammar should not follow "these" or "those" only because one is a singular object. If there is a plural number, "one" becomes inappropriate however there are few people I know (I live in the midwest US) that do not use this construction, as in common speech leaving an object out of a sentence sounds strange or over educated.

My wife and I both hail from the Southwestern US (California and Arizona, mainly), and we disagree on this. I've never used "these ones" or "those ones", and I think it sounds clumsy and unnatural. She and her family have always used it, and don't don't an eyelash over it. It's sort of like when you're a good speller, but you need to see the written word, to see how it looks, to know if it's right or not. I'm not a grammar expert, but I understand English better than most, and when I hear that it just makes me wince ever so slightly.

Grammar Geek
Anon, what pronoun would you suggest then for something to replace "pens" in the second and third line below?

I'm looking for a particular set of drawing pens.

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the pens I'm looking for.

(I agree that "Those ones aren't the right ones" is wrong - it's simply "Those." But I don't agree that ones can't be plural.)

See, this the weird thing. While that last sentence doesn't sound right, this one does:

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the ones I'm looking for.

Re: Definition of "democracy"

Goodman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:30:50 GMT

Democracy â Many of us hear it, speak of it, but do we still have it and is it remaining true? We are living today in a changing world. Democracy meant more a generation ago

Than what it means today. Today, many individuals with twisted views see democracy as

revoking traditions and rights to go against the majority because they believe itâs in their

liberty to do so. In the early democracy, judicial branch was never to interfere with legislature which is the law making process. But you wouldnât know it if you are living in the liberal states of US. Judges are making their own laws against and abolishing the ones passed voting citizens. If you donât believe it, Google it âGary Newsome on same sex marriageâ. In San Francisco, normal law abiding citizens have lost their democracy. They didnât vote for a major who has no problem harboring illegals in his City. They didnât vote for these politicians who grant the reengages in the city to use the last Friday

of every month to exercise their bike riding right, clogging all the entrance and exits to the freeway with their slow moving bike parade by the thousands. I hate this city which I used to live. I am glad I donât have to deal with it anymore, except when I have to see my mother!

Re: Long Time No See

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:54:00 GMT

well actually, if you are from china, then you'll what i means without feeling TOO weird.
it IS spoken by english speaker; the reason for that is just because the famous movie star, Jakie Chen, said that once in a movie which i dont remember, but anyways, it became so popular, so everyone started to say it

Re: improvised

Avangi — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:53:17 GMT

New2grammar
I feel you're describing the meaning of adhoc.

I don't think so. You could come upon a fence in a pasture and have no idea of it's purpose or the circumstances under which it was built, or how long it's been standing. Yet, knowing something about fences, you're able to judge that it was improvised.*****

Since I had previously opened the door to looking at the circumstances of why something may be improvised, I thought it should be clarified (that is, perhaps not always on the cheap).

Actually, "makeshift" and "improvised" speak more to the nature of the thing than to the circumstances under which it was created, even though the words themselves reference it's illegitimacy.

If I understand "ad hoc," it could apply to the most elegant, expensive, and carefully conceived temporary stage for a political debate.

On the other hand, you could argue that "ad hoc" applies to the stage as representative of the whole picture - both the special purpose, and the special circumstances under which it had to be improvised.

I hope someone more comfortable with the use of "ad hoc" can say if it applies here.

***** Note that we can say "was improvised" emphasizing the process, or "is improvised" emphasizing the quality.