http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aCool%3fBreeze&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Cool?Breeze'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#998360Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:40:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998360cool breezeThere is one thing I would like to mention quickly, though. Some of your last post seems to be trying to compare apple with oranges. He told me something that happened yesterday. That happened yesterday he told me. (Possible, but that is a demonstrative pronoun, Are you claiming that the word "that" is also demonstative in the first version of that sentence? And are you suggesting that those two sentences mean exactly the same thing? My point was to show that a sentence in which a relative clause beginning with the relative pronoun that precedes the main clause is impossible. Two sentences can't of course mean the same thing if that is a demonstrative pronoun in one of them and a relative pronoun in the other. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Help/lpqzv/post.htm#997378Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:15:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997378cool breezeAs far as I can see, the only difference is what scarcely makes. If you don't know the word, you can look it up in a dictionary. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IfAreToWereTo/lpqjd/post.htm#997377Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:13:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997377cool breezeI should think that No. 2 sounds best to native ears. (were, would, was) CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#997375Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:09:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997375cool breezeWhat do you think of this rewording: - That we can't afford it is the simple reason we aren't going. It occurs in informal speech, as you know. In no way does it change the grammatical nature of that, of course. I cannot think of relative that occurring in initial position. Relative that is possible only in restrictive relative clauses: This is the book that I bought. He told me something that happened yesterday. I read some of the books that he told me about. Very few people would say: That I bought this is the book. That happened yesterday he told me. (Possible, but that is a demonstrative pronoun, at least in Helsinki! ) That he told me about I read some of the books. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FarLessInstrumentContainment/lpphn/post.htm#997035Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:38:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997035cool breezeIndia is not an obstacle to China's aspirations, far less an instrument for its containment, as was wrongly suggested by some. Beautiful English! India is even less a country that will try to prevent China from using her political power. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ICannotSentenceMeans/lppwx/post.htm#996942Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996942cool breezeThe sentence is a grammatical mess, especially the part in bold. I guess it would improve marginally if there were a colon after entered into them. What follows explains the speculative element: the cattle might deteriorate or be productive. They and them seem to be used because cattle is a plural word. In my opinion you have understood the sentence as correctly as it can be understood! I look forward to native speakers' opinions, though. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#996799Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:09:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996799cool breezeI remember the day that he came. We aren’t going for the simple reason that we can’t afford it. Is 'that' used as an adverb in the above sentences ? In the first sentence that is indeed adverbial in character, which is obvious if we replace it with when: I remember the day when he came. You can also argue that that is a relative pronoun. If it is, then a preposition could be used with it and it would be interchangeable with whic h since the relative clause is restrictive: I remember the day he came on . I'll leave it to native speakers to pass judgement on the naturalness of this sentence. It is definitely grammatical, though. In your second sentence that doesn't resemble an adverb so much even though it is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatGrammaticalNames/lpxgx/post.htm#996773Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:46:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996773cool breezeUnaware of what was behind the door , he pushed the door hard to get in. Terminology varies from country to country. I'm sure this is of no avail to you since you probably live in an English speaking country, but I'll tell you anyway that the underlined part is called a causal clause equivalent where I live. = Because he was unaware of what was behind the door, he pushed the door hard to get in. By the way, in this part of the world a clause always has a finite verb and, obviously, an explicit or implied subject. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsGrammaticallyCorrect/lpxkp/post.htm#996771Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:38:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996771cool breezeSentences like yours occur frequently in spoken English when people start saying something without having thought out every detail in advance. Normally, in written language anyway, the subject comes first: The tests are a good challenge, pushing us students to study hard . I would drop the second study for stylistic reasons. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowOftenAllTheDaysAndMore/lpjmc/post.htm#995286Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:24:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995286cool breeze1. Elegant is fine about a hotel. 2. I much prefer Paul's grandmother's house even though the first sentence is also acceptable. Note that we don't normally say the house of Paul's , though. 3. All the days is not good here. Theoretically, you could say on all the days , but I don't think many natives would say that instead of every day, which is two words. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisSentenceCorrect/lpjmn/post.htm#995285Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:18:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995285cool breezePut a full stop/period at the end and it's fine. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Wish/lpwjr/post.htm#994951Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:57:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994951cool breezeBoth are correct but they don't mean the same thing. The first sentence makes more sense since it indicates that the person in question ate excessively before he was taken ill. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ReportedQuestions/lpwkd/post.htm#994946Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:54:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994946cool breezeNo. Used to is possible only in the past tense. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOrWhoWithInfinitive/lpbzh/post.htm#993230Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:23:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993230cool breezeI know where to go. (same sentence - no case conflict) I'm as comfortable saying that "where" is what I know and "to go" answers the question; as I am to say that "to go" is what I know and "where" modifies it. "To go" isn't a transitive verb. Why does it have to have an object anyway? Why is "where" such a great direct object? Have an Olvi, Avangi! I have noticed over the years that the grammar I am familiar with sometimes differs from what is used elsewhere or at least in the Anglo-Saxon world. In this particular case our opinions differ with regard to what is an object and what isn't. I'm not saying that I'm right and everybody else is wrong but...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NearVsNearby/gnvdz/post.htm#992987Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:15:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992987cool breezewow, thats incorrect. although both are adj, 'near' isnt used in front of nouns except rarely. It can be used as an adj, 'her house is near' but in front of a noun 'nearby' is almost always a better choice. I, too, would prefer nearby exactly like you. You may be interested in these definitions from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, though: –adj. 8. being close by; not distant: the near fields. 9. being the lesser in distance: the near side. 10. short or direct: the near road. 11. close in time: the near future. 12. closely related or connected: our nearest relatives. 13. close to an original: a near translation. 14. closely affecting one's interests or feelings: a matter of near consequence to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOrWhoWithInfinitive/lpbzh/post.htm#992986Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:08:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992986cool breezeI wouldn't hesitate to use who even in serious writing simply because it is so common. From a strictly grammatical point of view, whom will please those who insist on the object form when the pronoun is an object. It is the object of the infinitive to believe. (It is that in the grammatical thinking and terminology I am used to, that is! ) CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RanOrRun/lpbrn/post.htm#992783Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:48:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992783cool breezeNeither sentence is correct. Not is in the wrong place. I should not have r u n is right. Should is a defective auxiliary and thus an infinitive must be used after it. There are two infinitives in the active voice and another two in the passive. They are called (at least in this part of the world) the present infinitive and the perfect infinitive. The perfect infinitive usually refers to the past, to things that have already accurred. It is formed by adding a past participle after have: have seen, have gone, have needed, have run The past participle of run is run, not ran, which is the past tense: He ran away. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsMySentenceCorrect/lprwz/post.htm#992694Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:35:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992694cool breezeIt may be. In most cases such a sentence isn't a question and thus a full stop would be placed at the end insteaqd of the question mark. Incidentally, you need not SHOUT. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyCantEarlyMorning/lprwr/post.htm#992692Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:32:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992692cool breezewhy 'get up early in morning' is not acceptable? Why isn't 'get up in morning' acceptable? The only reason I can think of is that no one says so. Acceptability is largely determined simply by what people say or write. Also, languages change. Every word I write here would have been grossly wrong 1,000 years ago - and everything that passed for English in those days is wrong today! Well, nearly everything. A few words have remained unchanged. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAcceptable/2/lkqdj/Post.htm#992119Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:17:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992119cool breezeSo there you go according to the bible GAYS will not enter the kingdom of God which is heaven What makes you think this is a problem for homosexual people? Are you sure they would like to go to Heaven? If they get harassed by straight people here on earth, they may think it's a good idea not to enter Heaven, where they are liable to receive the same unsatisfactory treatment they are subjected to in this life. Besides, wouldn't life be better in Heaven for you as well if gay people didn't come and perturb your thoughts with their presence? Eternal life in Heaven with people whose sexual disposition you find objectionable doesn't sound like my idea of a blissful existence. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InWhichCase/lxnzd/post.htm#992108Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:02:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992108cool breezeThe sentence is very awkward in my opinion. Which is a relative pronoun. The underlined phrase refers to the "that" clause. I would say: I know that it fell and that's why / therefore / consequently it has to be taken to a vet. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HomosexualMarriagesAcceptable/lkqdj/post.htm#979592Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:979592cool breezeHomosexuality is a conclusion so homosexual marriages are conclusions either. We must accept those marriages. But governments, scientists should make a lot of researches about why people born as homosexuals. They must try to prevent it. I can't make head or tail of your opinions because you disagree with yourself. We must accept homosexual marriages and governments and scientists must try to prevent them. How can that be done at the same time? Also, I have no idea what you mean by saying homosexuality is a "conclusion". Do you think homosexuals will eventually be the majority and the population of the world will cease to grow? Are there other reasons why are so worried about homosexuals? Should other minorities be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NewspaperArticle/llrnc/post.htm#973004Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:47:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:973004cool breezeI cannot understand how a town hall can be broadcast/broadcasted. Was is the past tense in your "sentence". Both broadcast and broadcasted are correct as past participles. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AfterDoorShutClosedOptional/llrkw/post.htm#972998Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:44:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:972998cool breeze1 My mom died , after which I found out that she wasn't really my mom. Correct with the comma. 2 Could you please shut the door. (closed) The door shut / closed behind me. The first sentence is correct without closed. Both shut and closed are correct in the second sentence. I think closed is more common as an intransitive verb (= a verb without an object). CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TheInversionQuestionsQuestionWord-Questions/lkxxv/post.htm#972387Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:33:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:972387cool breezeDo/does/did is not used in questions 1. with forms of to be : Is he happy? Were they swimming? 2. with perfect and past perfect auxiliaries : Have you seen him? Had it already begun? 3. sometimes with have/has/had when the verb is in the presnt tense, in other words, the finite verb: Have you money? This usage seems to be slowly disappearing and is seldom used these days, especially in AmE. It's far more common to say: Have you got money? / Do you have money? If have does not mean "to possess", do/does/did must always be used: Did you have your house painted? Why does he have to go there? 4. If an interrogative pronoun is the subject or a part of the subject of a clause, do/does/did is not used: What...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PositionOfOnly/lklxn/post.htm#971418Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:44:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:971418cool breezeYou can find more about only here. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceCorrection/lkhpr/post.htm#970243Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:36:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970243cool breezeBoth the infintitive to run and the gerund running are correct after some verbs such as start, begin, hate etc. Some grammarians argue that the infinitive is better or should be used to refer to a single case of something happening and the gerund is to be preferred in other cases. Actual usage does not support this view even though it is true that one or the other of the alternatives may sound better or be more common in some cases. The tense od the verb, in your example started , has nothing to do with the choice. Examples: He starts to read the newspaper at 7 o'clock. He starts reading the newspaper... He started to read the newspaper... He started reading the newspaper... The meaning of some verbs depends on the form...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PluralInanimateObjectsWhose/lkwch/post.htm#970232Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:27:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970232cool breezeWelcome to EF, badgrammar! I hope you'll soon be able to change your screen name to Good Grammar. It is correct to use the possessive form whose as a relative pronoun whenever a possessive form is needed: This house, whose windows are shut, is for sale. Or: This house, the windows of which are shut, is for sale. These houses, whose windows are shut, are for sale. Or: These houses, the windows of which are shut, are for sale. This man, whose car is parked in the street, wants to sell it. Using whose to refer to inanimate objects is not at all common in speech. It is mostly used in formal written English. (I'm sorry I couldn't come up with more natural examples of whose . ) CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Adjectives/lkwbv/post.htm#970229Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:19:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970229cool breezeAs far as I understand, a possessive adjective is placed before a noun : This is his car . A possessive pronoun cannot have a noun after it: This car is his . However, in many European countries terminology is different and the term possessive adjective isn't used at all and consequently his is always considered a pronoun. This grammatical terminology dates from old Latin grammar usage. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WordOrderAdverbsManner/lkhnp/post.htm#970218Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:13:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970218cool breezeBoth positions are correct. You can put completely adverb after the subject (you) or at the end of the sentence. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SlatedToMakeLandfall/lkchb/post.htm#969907Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:35:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:969907cool breezeThanks for your reply. Could you also please tell me what "make landfall" or "landfall" means in this context? I have already done that: to reach the coast. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Apostrophes/lkclx/post.htm#969254Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:49:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:969254cool breezeIn casual speaking, I probably use the more common double possessive sometimes. Hi Philip I am sure you prefer the double possessive in cases like this: I'm a colleague of his . CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Apostrophes/lkclx/post.htm#968858Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:47:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968858cool breezeI would say what CJ would say, but I know that I'm a colleague of Mr. Smith is also right. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SlatedToMakeLandfall/lkchb/post.htm#968592Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:29:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968592cool breezeAs you can see from the ending in the word slated, it is a verb in the text. It means about the same as estimated or scheduled. People estimated that the storm would reach the coast late Wednesday night. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AdverbAfterBeVerb/ljqxx/post.htm#968577Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:21:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968577cool breezeBut I still think the word "backstage" in the sentence "The actor is backstage" is an adverb. You are right. - CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectVerbage/lkcdj/post.htm#968573Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:17:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968573cool breezeYour boss uses the plain infinitive (review), in other words an infinitive without "to" after assist . He may have been misled by another verb that has the same meaning as assist: We will help the client review purchase invoices. .. To is optional after active forms of help but it is needed after assist . Your suggestion (in reviewing) is good. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectPunctuationInDates/lkbwr/post.htm#968311Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:27:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968311cool breezeIt depends on whom you ask. I'm sure nearly all Americans would use a comma after May 29 and probably the majority of Britons too. However, some British newspapers such as The Guardian have a dislike for commas in dates and write the date as it is in your post. This is a fairly recent development. On the whole, in British English fewer commas and full stops/periods are used these days than in American English. For example, Mr . Bell looks dated to many Brits and for many years I haven't received a letter beginning with Dear Cool Breeze , from a Brit. Americans still often put a comma where I put it. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Possessives/lkrzd/post.htm#968205Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:18:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968205cool breezeWe couldn't tell which CDs were whose after Carly 's got mixed up with Kendal's and Charles 's CDs. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ChinaVsChinese/jqzpk/post.htm#968201Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:12:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:968201cool breezeAnother possibility: China bank could be the name of the bank itself... No. Bank would be capitalized in that case. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TechnologyAndTechnologies/ljpvk/post.htm#967450Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:30:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967450cool breezeThat's how I see it, too. However, I'm a good enough computer expert to say whether the use of the plural technologies is really justified in this context - in other words, whether there really are many computer technologies or not. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisSentenceCorrect/ljpgk/post.htm#967448Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:25:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967448cool breezeThe sentence isn't correct. It would be interesting to know what you are trying to say. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LearnedOrLearnt/ljpgr/post.htm#967446Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:23:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:967446cool breezeI'd like to add that only learned is correct as an adjectival attribute: a learned man. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FreedomSpeechRussiaChinaOther-Countries/9/glkmw/Post.htm#966145Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:12:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:966145cool breezeI don't feel that the traditional media have improved in either of those countries. In fact, I feel that the UK may have climbes up by default and deception. I have had serious posting problems recently and that's why I'm late in replying to you. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but maybe Reporters Without Borders and I see the freedom of speech from a slightly different angle from yours. The organisation doesn't consider it wrong for a country to have a tabloid press that concentrates on what uneducated people in particular want to read about. In my opinion, such a press can only exist in a country that has at least some freedom of the press. There are no tabloids in North Korea! In the UK, the tabloids give...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeArriving/ljkbh/post.htm#965935Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:29:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965935cool breeze1. The going to structure very often indicates a premeditated intention: I am going to fix this ladder tomorrow. However, it is sometimes used about things we cannot plan ahead: It is going to rain soon. 2. The continuous future tense sometimes sounds less nosy in questions: Will you be going to his party? It may also sound a little more casual than the simple future: I'll be arriving in the afternoon. 3. The simple future is usually devoid of the above connotations: I'll arrive in the afternoon. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SingularPronouns/ljkrb/post.htm#965934Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:21:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965934cool breezeI don't like the use of it in your first sentence. I would say: I bet after a few visits you'll find those kind of places boring. Kind is an irregular plural in that expression according to many authoritative grammarians such as Otto Jespersen. The only grammatically exceptional thing about other is that when a countable singular noun is used with it and it requires an indefinite article (an), the article is not a separate word. Examples of other: I need an other car . I need other book s . Some other boy s had seen her. Another boy had seen her. John and Paul are here. Where are the other boys? CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfGoingToGo/ljkdq/post.htm#965924Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:07:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965924cool breezeIt is grammatically correct but may sound awkward because of the "double" go. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TakenCaredOfOrTakenCareOf/ljkcd/post.htm#965923Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:06:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965923cool breezeCare is a noun in the expression and thus can't be inflected. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/EasyAnswer/ljwxd/post.htm#965511Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:03:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965511cool breezeI see nothing wrong with it. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsAnyAPluralForm/ljhqd/post.htm#965341Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:07:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965341cool breezeAny can be followed by either a plural or a singula r: I don't need any money . He doesn't have any friends . CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoesCountryForeignLanguageHigh-School/ljgpw/post.htm#964997Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:09:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:964997cool breezeI think you mean a school in which all teaching is done in a foreign language, don't you? Foreign languages are taught in all Finnish comprehensive schools and high schools. Two schools of the type you probably mean come to mind, The English School and Die Deutsche Schule . Also, since Finland is officially bilingual, there are countless schools in which teaching is done in Swedish, which isn't my native language. I'm a Finn. CB