http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aCalifJim&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:CalifJim'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeThat/lpwkv/post.htm#997677Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:37:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997677califjim' be that ' be is the present subjunctive of (what else?) be . In this context be X means whether X is / are in modern English -- whether X be in older English. Thus, ... be that your daddy, your mum, ... = whether that is your daddy, your mum, ... ... be he short or tall. = whether he is short or tall. ... be they wicked or wise. = whether they are wicked or wise. ____________________ The use of inversions like Were it closer (I could see it better) standing for If it were closer, ... or of Had it been closer, ... for If it had been closer , ... shows a family resemblance to this use of Be he friend or foe ... for Whether he be friend or foe ... ( Whether he is a friend or a foe in modern English.) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowCanISay/lpmwh/post.htm#997665Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:21:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997665califjimAs GG mentioned, "Easy for you to say" is a good reaction to mispronunciations. For years it was my boss's favorite expression in that situation. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionRegardingLinguisticMechanism/lpxwq/post.htm#997567Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:47:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997567califjimI want to know why verbs like "to explain" require a preposition while others do not. There is no rule. It's considered a property of the individual verb. The general topic is called Dative Alternation. There are three verb groups: Alternating, Non-Alternating -- to Only, and Non-Alternating -- Double Object Only. 1. give, lend, pass, pay, grant, hand, mail, toss, show, sell, ... 2. donate, explain, contribute, deliver, demonstrate, ... 3. ask, cost, fine, deny, save, ... Give me the money. Give the money to me. * Explain me the rule. Explain the rule to me. Ask me a question. * Ask a question to me. Linguists have pointed out that Group 1 verbs are often monosyllabic and non-Latinate, while Group 2 verbs are...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AllExpressionsOfTime/lpxbz/post.htm#997552Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:18:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997552califjimBut I am not following the right structure PLACE first and TIME then.. True. But the correct use of the verb spend takes precedence. In this case you have to use the "amount of time" expression first because it is the object of spend . The PLACE-then-TIME rule applies less to "amount of time" and more to "at what time": I spent several hours in the park last Monday . George spent four hours at his desk l ast night . ______________ Because spend requires an amount-of-time object, you need these sorts of things as the object: all day, the whole day, the entire day, all week, the whole week, the entire week, all month, the whole month, the entire month , etc. Not all the day, all the week, all...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MostlyMakingPossessive/lqrjd/post.htm#997541Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:05:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997541califjim1. The shirt he wore in this year's high school reunion was smaller than the one he wore at last year's. (But better: than the one he wore last year.) 2. The year-end sales figure for our company was higher than last year's. OK. 3. Last year's year-end sales figure was higher than the figure (that?) for the year before. previous year's. 4. His eagerness to win at this year's final at the state competition was more noticeable than his eagerness at last year's. (But better: than it was last year.) You had a bit of a problem in the first and last sentences. this year's contrasts with last year's , so when you don't spell out what noun follows last year's , it will be assumed that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseAnswer/lqrzn/post.htm#997529Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:46:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997529califjimIt can be anything you feel has the qualities that school has. School is a mirror. School is a hammer. School is a book. School is a jail. School is a parking lot. School is a corporation. School is a path. School is a machine. School is a warehouse. School is a religion. School is a bed. School is a garden. School is a medicine. School is a disease. School is an ocean liner. School is a dill pickle. School is a meal. Of course the ones that more people can easily relate to are usually the better metaphors. If it's very difficult to understand what school has in common with your chosen metaphor, most people will just find it strange. Many of the metaphors above are quite strange, for example. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NotToOrToNotDoSomething/lqrhb/post.htm#997520Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:38:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997520califjimWhile many will tell you that "to not" is just fine and in some cases has a different meaning from "not to", I would not recommend it. My personal reaction to "to not" is quite strong and quite negative. I always look for another way to phrase what I want to say so that I can avoid it. "to never" is equally awful to my ear. In order not to bother my roomate, I left the apartment. Not to bother you, but may I have some change? CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InformationOrInformations/lpqng/post.htm#997519Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:32:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997519califjimYes, there are different freedoms. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WrongSentences/lqrhc/post.htm#997518Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:31:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997518califjimI'm no asleep. I'm not asleep. I'm not sleeping. You speak a very good English. You speak English very well. Everybody was late. OK. The people in this town is very friendly. The people in this town are very friendly. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MakingQuestionWithoutAuxiliary-Verb/lpqxc/post.htm#997403Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:51:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997403califjimIs an auxiliary verb needed in those sentences? if If not, why? No, because you can't invert and {verb}. You can't invert because the question word is in the of the sentence. (If you inverted, the question word would no longer be first, and you have to keep the question word first, so you can't invert.) {has} a larger surface ...? {goes} ...? Adding the auxiliary verb do is only needed when you invert subject and verb. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ASentence/lqrbk/post.htm#997392Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:36:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997392califjimWhat does this mean? "Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." In many religions, when people pray (that is, ask a god or gods to grant them favors), they put their hands together, or "clasp" them together. It is a traditional posture of the hands probably derived from some typical ancient gesture of begging. The prayer may consist of some standard formula of words typical of their religion, or in some cases it may be said in their own words. Their wishes may be granted or not. That is, they may get what they ask the god(s) for, or not. (Most often they don't, but that is usually attributed to not having prayed correctly.) The author of your quoted sentence believes that such...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoShould/lppjg/post.htm#997207Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:03:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997207califjimI wonder if there is a subtle difference between "1" and "2" 1. What should I do? 2. What do I do? I'd say the first is a request for advice. What is your opinion about my next action(s)? The second is a request for guidance or instruction. I've got this far. Now show me or tell me what comes next. The first implies that the listener doesn't have an exact answer; the second, that he does. The first implies that the speaker doesn't think there is necessarily an exact answer; the second, that there is. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatIFindInterestingIsAre/lpqhq/post.htm#997188Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:52:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997188califjimI always use the singular. What I find interesting is the relationships. But, The relationships are what I find interesting. In other words, I assume that the subject is first, and make the agreement with the subject. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SentencesFunctions/lpqzz/post.htm#997186Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:50:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997186califjimwhat's W hat's the difference between sentences expressing intention and others expressing planned actions? I have no idea what you are getting at. Can you give any further information about the distinction you are attempting to explore? The verbs intend and plan are available to you, if those are what you are looking for. I intend to visit China next year. I plan to visit China next year. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#997182Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:40:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997182califjimThat is a conjunction in the second sentence, not a relative pronoun! I agree. More specifically I'd call it a complementizer. It makes the clause we can't afford it subordinate. In any case, that has no antecedent in the preceding text even though reason certainly seems to be a good candidate. that we can't afford it is a "content clause" in apposition to reason . Similarly, ... the fact that we can't afford it or ... the claim that we can't afford it. Contrast the reason that we gave as an explanation . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SurfOrSurfing/lpkbm/post.htm#996570Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:32:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996570califjimCJ, why do you object to the restaurant one? Completely on stylistic grounds I think. It sounds stuffy to me -- like saying My friend GG is one of intelligence and good humor . What's the phrase? De gustibus non disputandum -- or some such Latin thing about there being no arguing about taste. I didn't mean to suggest that the construction itself was ungrammatical, but I admit it may have come off that way. CJ P.S. Did you know that your cat's got its head on upside down?http://www.englishforums.com/English/LanguagePower/lpxbq/post.htm#996567Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:26:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996567califjimthe city council held a meeting is held every month Here you have a bunch of words that don't even make much sense. Do you have a question about this list of words? CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IfYouNeedMeTo/lpxdv/post.htm#996566Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:24:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996566califjim" If you need me to send the package, please let me know." Is this right? Yes. It's right. " If you would like me to send the package, please let me know." ? Is this better than the first one? This one is also right. I think it's better, yes. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatPluralPossessiveForm-Witness/lpxvp/post.htm#996565Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:23:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996565califjimMake it plural. witnesses. Then add only ' if it already ends in s . witnesses' CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#996368Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:03:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996368califjimIt's not that hard to explain. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HeresSomeoneAboutSth/lpnzn/post.htm#996367Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:02:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996367califjimYou can think of it as Here's what Updike had (in his mind) (that he wanted) to say about ... What do you have to say about that? CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveGerund/lpmqq/post.htm#996271Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:42:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996271califjimI suppose you mean a possessive form before the gerund. I would say no in all cases. vehicle sales' rising, Cattles's achieving, and RBS's owning are all awkward in my opinion, and in the last case, definitely wrong. The with ... -ing pattern doesn't ever take a possessive before its gerund, as far as I know. In my opinion, the possessive works better with the pro-forms my, your, our , etc., and even there, Dickens was probably the last person to handle them with anything resembling expertise. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfWay/lpnrr/post.htm#996261Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:26:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996261califjimYou will find various explanations for these. Here are mine. 1. Only the -ing form can be used after a preposition, so the preposition by is dropped when the infinitive is used, even though its meaning is still present. The only way is trying. The only way is to try. 2. A sentence that begins with The way (that) ... is equivalent to one that begins Because of the way (that) ... , so its function is adverbial. The introductory The way he was standing is therefore an adverbial of reason. It tells why. I thought he was ill. Why? Because of the way he was standing. More formally, I thought he was ill because of the way he was standing. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AreYouSureYouDont/lpmkz/post.htm#996173Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:13:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996173califjimI answered "Yes, I am sure." (meaning I don't want to turn left here) I was told that I should have answered "No" instead... I can't imagine why someone would say that. "Yes, I'm sure (that I don't want to turn left here)" is correct. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PastTenseAndPastPerfect/lpmxp/post.htm#996171Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:08:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996171califjimExample: I learned more today than I did all week. (OR) I learned more today than I had all week. Are both sentences correct? Since 'learned' is past tense, would it be accurate to use 'had' because it is past perfect? The sentence suggests that today is the last in a series of seven days. That means there is no separation in time between the progression of the days of the week and the current day. But had implies a separation -- a going back to a time previous to the span of time on which the sentence focuses. The two contradict. I find had a bit anomalous for this reason. A more appropriate use of had , in my opinion, is the following, where there is a clearer separation in time: I learned more today than I had...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesTackleMean/zhnph/post.htm#995569Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:06:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995569califjimWhat does 'tackle' mean in the sentence? Something a little less violent than these, but the same sort of thing. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Tackle.JPG/602px-Tackle.JPG http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42018000/jpg/_42018524_tackle416.jpg http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N50/graphics/gotw_football-1.jpg CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Afterthoughts/lpjmp/post.htm#995547Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:42:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995547califjimI do afterthoughts with dashes -- usually. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InverseConverseContropassive/lpjbm/post.htm#995546Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:37:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995546califjimWhat would the inverse of 'If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as the establishment,'? The converse and the contropassive? Calling the contrapositive the contropassive is a very bad mistake. You need to pay a great deal more attention if you expect to succeed in your logic class. Besides, the sentence you gave is not normally the kind of sentence to which these concepts are applied, as you can see by the strange results below. And also, note that this is a forum for English grammar, not a logic class. p = it is up to me q = there is no such thing as the establishment statement: if p then q | If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as the establishment. converse: if q then p | If there were no...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IndirectObjectBeginning/lpkcr/post.htm#995401Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:57:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995401califjimFor myself I bought ... , and for my friends I bought .... -- Fine. I bought ... for myself, and I bought ... for my friends. -- Fine. (You needn't have corrected them. Either way is good English grammar.) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SurfOrSurfing/lpkbm/post.htm#995392Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:52:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995392califjimSome answered: "The best activity I did was surf". Is it correct? or should they say "surfing"? surf is used as a verb, so What I did was surf is OK. But the word activity occurs in the first part, so that changes things. *The activity was surf is not grammatical. I would say surfing in this case. The restaurant was one of luxury No. The restaurant was luxurious. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/English/lpjwl/post.htm#995316Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:52:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995316califjimIf you have a question, you will have to ask it! CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowOftenAllTheDaysAndMore/lpjmc/post.htm#995315Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:49:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995315califjimThe hotel was elegant. -- Perfect. Paul's grandmother's house. -- Perfect. The house of Paul's grandmother. -- ??? -- Understandable. Not idiomatic. I went to the beach all the days. -- NO!!! I went to the beach every day. -- Fine. (every day is two words, not one) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferenceInFomAndMeaning/lpjjh/post.htm#995312Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:45:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995312califjimThey painted the red door blue. = They painted the door which was already red so that it became blue. They painted the red door. = They painted the door which was already red so that it became some unspecified color. They painted the door blue. = They painted the door which was already some unspecified color so that it became blue. Painted the door . Color A is the starting color. Color B is the ending color. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FitOnOntoInACd/lpjcj/post.htm#995084Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:40:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995084califjimI guess on/onto are fine but not sure about in . You guess right. on or onto, but not in. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatsPlumPost/lphwk/post.htm#994607Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:40:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994607califjimwhat W hat does the expression 'plum posts' refer to in this sentence? Especially desirable positions. Very well-paying jobs that are very easy to do. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceHelp/lpgmd/post.htm#994597Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:32:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994597califjimis there any fancier way of saying this? Sure. Why not? My means of transport ceased in its proper function, rendering it immobile, thereby necessitating my delivering it into the hands of the personnel of the repair establishment I customarily frequent in such straits. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BoundaryBetweenWestEast/lphvw/post.htm#994594Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:23:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994594califjimI don't think there is any well defined boundary. In approximate terms, anything east of the Mississippi River is the East; anything west of the Rocky Mountains is the West; anything in between is the Mid-West. Nevertheless, states that are not very far east of the Mississippi, like Michigan and Indiana and Ohio, are sometimes included in the Mid-West. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TenSentencesMovieSureCorrect/lxqhb/post.htm#994472Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:59:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994472califjimare these sentences so unnatural that you wouldn't hear them? No. Not to me. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatSynonymPickSomebody/jbrvc/post.htm#994333Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:01:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994333califjimMy boss always picks on me. My boss always finds fault with my work. My boss always harasses me. My boss always bullies me. My boss always singles me out for criticism. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DeliverVsSupply/lpgwn/post.htm#994322Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:51:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994322califjimYou can use either one, but the second one focuses more on the gas actually moving through the pipes to Moldova and being received at Moldova, so I would use that one. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/lpzkl/post.htm#994321Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:43:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994321califjimHee! Have you read A House for Mr. Biswas ? "Aught aughts are aught!" CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/2/lxxmm/Post.htm#994311Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:35:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994311califjimFor the last three hours he has been playing with his Xbox and not doing his homework. Sounds fine to me. As would this, if you want a similar example with a passive in the second clause: For the last three hours he has been playing with his Xbox and not been seen doing his homework. Here's another I find acceptable. I think you will enjoy this mathematical puzzle and not be exhausted by trying to solve it. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/2/lxxmm/Post.htm#994310Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:26:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994310califjimDifferent people put the grammatical/ungrammatical line at different places when it comes to judgments about coordination with and . I find nothing unusual about not repeating will in the example sentences; the change from active to passive doesn't bother me, and the introduction of a negation in the second clause doesn't bother me either. Even though both of these grammatical devices are applied, my mind carries the will through to the second clause with no trouble at all. Obviously, this reaction is not universal. I find nothing wrong with ... was in his forties and of average build. Yet, as I've pointed out before, I find it inane to say ... left in a Cadillac and a bad mood . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/lpzkl/post.htm#994292Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:58:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994292califjimit is still not clear to me. OK. Maybe you just need a little review about "dummy it ". In many cases, as with adjectives like important, possible, and necessary , we move the subject from the beginning to the end of the sentence, putting it in its place at the beginning. The it that you see at the beginning is called "dummy it ", because it is just a place holder for the subject that has been moved to the end. Remember, a subject has to be a noun or something noun-like, for example, a noun clause. The for ... to ... clause is not adverbial. is necessary. becomes is necessary . is not possible. becomes is not possible . _____________________________________ The following example is more like your...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichCorrectFormGoneWent/lpzrv/post.htm#994206Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:53:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994206califjimmore google results for this form compared to the former. Shocking! CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IReadWasReadingABook/lpgbc/post.htm#994193Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:40:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994193califjimIf I answer the question "What did you do last night?" "I read a book.", does it mean that I finished the book? No. Not necessarily. It could mean that you read part of a book. You did some book-reading. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PutativeShould/lpzqh/post.htm#994180Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:28:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994180califjimWhat's in the first one is the fact that you were led to think it at all. In this statement there is the implication that what you think is not something that people would usually be led to think. What's in the second one is that you really do think it. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoReMiOrCDE/2/vjwqd/Post.htm#994175Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994175califjimThough I'm glad this person asked because I had totally forgotten about this thread and re-reading it was like learning it all anew. (I never knew that you could call G in the G major scale "do" in the US. I thought do was always C, even here, so this was interesting to learn - twice!) "The advantage of having a bad memory is that you can enjoy the same thing for the first time -- many times." -- Nietzsche. (Who said Fred had no sense of humor?) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/lpzkl/post.htm#994166Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:14:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994166califjim'for some jerk to...' doesn't look like a noun phrase. No, but from for to the end of the sentence is, in fact, a noun phrase. It's a for ... to ... clause, and all such clauses are noun-like. It's important for him to be here on time . = For him to be here on time is important. In your example the for is not absolutely required, but it fits well with the casual style of the remark. Given a choice, I would leave it in. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoReMiOrCDE/2/vjwqd/Post.htm#993554Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:22:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993554califjimthe U.S. equivalentes to European notes do re mi fa sol la si.... Grammar Geek has already answered this. U.S. CDEFGAB = European do re mi fa sol la si (That last one is ti in English, but you guys have si there.) CJ