http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aPemmican&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Pemmican'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/RiseAriseWaitAwaitTheseWords-KillingLol/cwlcb/post.htm#209592Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:12:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:209592pemmicanHello Nathanise, the answer is not that difficult for wait/await: "wait" simple means "being in a condition of waiting" and it's intransitive, while "await" is a kind of "forced waiting" and usually transitive. I.e. when you say "I wait", it means you're waiting for somebody (maybe for a meeting), if you say "you await...", then you're not precisely waiting for somebody, but for something you're going to get from that person. This object needs to be added in the sentence as well: examples: I wait for my wife (= We wanted to meet here, but she hasn't appeared yet) I await my wife's call (= She wanted to call me ( => I'm waiting for a call, not for my wife in person), but she hasn't rung yet). I can't...http://www.englishforums.com/English/FruitOrVeg/crlmm/post.htm#170572Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:57:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:170572pemmicanCategories concerning food differ sometimes... I was told once not to argue with a native English speaker about whether "cauliflower" is (a) cabbage or not... For a German speaker it is, while for an English speaker it's not... As I said: It's no good argueing about that any deeper...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PastTense/crhwk/post.htm#169234Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:58:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:169234pemmicanI'd say "was" is as correct as "stood". It has to be a past tense form (both "was" and "stood" are past tense forms) - and both of them fit in this context: The only difference is a semantic one: "stand" (past tense: "stood") means that you were there "standing", i.e. neither sitting nor lying etc. while "be" (past tense "was") only considers the fact that you were attendant. All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingShall/crhzq/post.htm#169231Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:51:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:169231pemmicanThere might be a preference of using "shall" in British English, while "should" is preferred in the same contexts in American English. That's at least been a topic of a research a professor of mine discussed once. All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SurnamePronunciation/blrqx/post.htm#140424Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:08:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:140424pemmicanAnonymous wrote: I was wondering if there is a place to find the pronunciation of surnames. Mainly: Feigenbaum and Gristede Hello Anonymous, "Feigenbaum" indeed is German and pronounced (@ like "a" in a go ). I don't know where "Gristede" is from, in case it's of German origin, it pronunciation can be or , if it's of Dutch origin, then it's pronunciation could be something equal to . (C as "ch" in German i ch or an overpronounced "h" in English h uman ). I hope I could help you out, all the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationEnglishHlafmaese/2/bkccd/Post.htm#140421Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:00:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:140421pemmicanThanks for your reply, Languagelover. Interesting, that the "h" was only aspirated when it was used as the initial sound followed by another consonant... but I was only guessing anyways. I know that "h" sounded like when it's the first sound of a word or syllable, and when its's the final sound of a word or immediately followed by a consonant. It seems to be different when h occurs initially and is followed by a consonant then... Anyways, thanks again I've bookmarked the link, CalifJim posted (Ididn't realize there was one), so thanks also to you, Jim Ttys -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationEnglishHlafmaese/bkccd/post.htm#134876Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:02:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:134876pemmicanAnonymous wrote: Hi Pemmican, It has to do with some research I'm doing. "In England, August 1 was known as Lammas (from the Old English hlafmaese, "Loaf Mass"). In thanksgiving for a plentiful harvest, the faithful brought bread made from the first sheaves of grain to church for a blessing. magu That is interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! Btw: I'm pretty sure, the "h" should also be pronounced (I expect a sound equal to the German "ch") - doesn't your source say anything about that?!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationEnglishHlafmaese/bkccd/post.htm#133554Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:21:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:133554pemmicanWhat does "hlafmaese" mean btw?! (Just out of curiosity...)http://www.englishforums.com/English/UnstressedSchwaStressedSchwa/bhpnd/post.htm#130412Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:42:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:130412pemmicanCalifJim wrote: Is there really such a thing as a stressed schwa? I think that's a very confusing use of terminology. All schwas are unstressed. You may have a stressed "lax u" as in "mutton", but, being stressed, it can hardly be called a schwa, can it? Furthermore, there is no single unstressed schwa in English. "schwa" is the name for many indistinct unstressed central vowel sounds, which vary according to context. Some schwas are closer to lax u; others are closer to lax i; and so on. Before "n" or "s" it is sometimes difficult to say whether the schwa is closer to the one or the other. "nation" may be said more like "nay-shin" or more like "nay-shun" depending on the speaker. Likewise, "bonus" may be said more like "boe-niss" or...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Imma/bwxvb/post.htm#127034Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:51:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:127034pemmican"I'mma tiger, I'mma tiger... I'mma tiger I'm a tiger" --> I suppose it's just a 'contraction' of "I am + a". -MrMagoohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GrayArea/bwznq/post.htm#124534Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:30:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:124534pemmican"sometimes" means (several times) every once in a while "sometime" means at one , more or less indefinite, point of time . All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SeemNotDoesntSeem/2/bwcmb/Post.htm#124315Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:52:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:124315pemmicanAnonymous wrote: i also have another question. dont want to open three threads. thats wh i put it all in one thread. i hope its ok. this question is hard to describe. in german and french wie have a word called: man ( german) and on ( french) according to dictionaries man and on mean "you" . however i have the impression that "you" is not always appropriate. i have the feeling that its often better to say people or ro use a passive voice instead. cant think of any example, but maybe there is some1 here who can speak german or french and is an english native at the same time. an example of you would be : you never know. a formal way to say it would be "one". Hello globetrotter and welcome to the forums! About "man":...http://www.englishforums.com/English/It/bwzbg/post.htm#124312Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:35:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:124312pemmicanTaka wrote: All genuine science has its origin in the intellectual curiosity of the free human spirit, in its creative genius, and in its power of insight. What does 'its' refer to, '(genuine) science' or 'the free human spirit'? I think it's 'science', but I'm not sure on this one... I'm quite sure it refers to "(genuine) science". Cheers -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PollBirtishEnglishAmericanEnglish/bwvzd/post.htm#124311Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:32:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:124311pemmicanAnd Oi loike Oztrai'jen English best - it just sounds keol. *** American English (resp. Western and Northern American accents) is pretty easy for me to understand while Southern accents and Eastern accents I find more difficult. British English sounds rather posh sometimes and depending on the dialect, it's quite hard, too. Esp. Scottish accent is almost impossible for me to understand - I can just get a word or two every once in a while, the rest I have to conclude from the context... *** Australian English sounds really interesting (esp. because of all those diphthongized vowels). For me, it's a bit easier to understand than British English, but generally a bit more difficult than American English. All the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OneOfMyFriends/bwvrg/post.htm#123993Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:45:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123993pemmicanThe 2nd one is correct. "Mother" has to be singular as you're talking about one special mother only: The mother of one of your friends. All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IAmGoingToGoTo/bwdnb/post.htm#123966Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:25:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123966pemmicanAnonymous wrote: Is the following correct? E.g.: I'm going to go to the beach. Possible to have two "go"s in this sentence? (The article "the" is needed) The tense is correct: It's the so called "going-to-Future". The 1st "to" (I'm going TO go to the beach) is part of the following infinitive "go"; the 2nd "to" (I'm going to go TO the beach) is a preposition, expressing movement towards the beach. Cheers -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThePrice/bwdxv/post.htm#123964Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:16:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123964pemmicanTaka wrote: (a) The price and commitment of caring for one's aged parents was escalating steadily because of a shortage of affordable nursing homes and a lack of home-care services. (b) The price and the commitment of caring for one's aged parents were escalating steadily because of a shortage of affordable nursing homes and a lack of home-care services. What kind of difference do you native speakers detect between these two? I'm not a native English speaker, but my suggestion is that "The price and the commitment" in (a) are regarded to form a unity, so the singular past tense form of the verb "be" is used, while in (b), they are regarded to be two separated things which leads to the use of the plural form...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoPronounceTheseWords/bwdkx/post.htm#123956Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:02:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123956pemmicanBamtori wrote: Whenever I hear people say words like 'where it is' or 'whatever it is', it sounds like they don't pronounce 'i' of the word "it". Why do I not hear 'i' sound??? Hello Bamtori, whenever people chat, especially when they speak really quickly, sounds can disappear. This happens especially to those sounds that are unstressed, e.g. the "it" in your sentences. Words that aren't stressed for any reason are often contracted or combine with another word - which makes a phrase like "where it is" sound like "whertis". I hope I could help you out All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishTestQuestionHelp/bwdjj/post.htm#123949Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:52:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123949pemmicanAnonymous wrote: Hi , I wonder if you can answer my question - I recently wrote an English test and part of the test was a Cloze passage where you fill in the missing word . A point was taken off for the following sentence "Edison's Inventions made people's lives more ______ " . I would like to know if filling in "simple" in the missing space is correct ? I know it is better English to use the word simpler instead of more simple but is this just convention or is there an actual english grammar rule forbidding the usage of this form . As far as i know in school i always learned that words with more than 2 syllables can get either a more or the addition -er except for a few exceptions such as beautiful or longer sylabble words "...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingQuestion/bwchv/post.htm#123940Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:31:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:123940pemmicanPhilip wrote: Mister Micawber wrote: Have you the ball? Has she the ball? These are the standard in British English. And the only remaining full verb (beside "to be") that resists the "do-paraphrasing". American English gave up this structure and it's assumed that British English will follow some time.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Australians/4/gvnb/Post.htm#95823Tue, 03 May 2005 14:30:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:95823pemmicanNot that long ago, they showed "Blurred" on TV here in Germany - funny film but kind of weird. A few weeks ago, I saw "Kiss or Kill" starring Matt Day who I knew from a short-film they showed earlier called "Mad Day" *LOL* --> Unfortunately I didn't record this short film as it was really funny!! I've also watched "Buddies", an Australian film from 1984 with Colin Friels. Great scenery of Queensland. So actually - you do have some funny films over there in Down Underhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GoodFriday/3/brzxg/Post.htm#86367Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:38:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:86367pemmican---> "What are the two days before good friday called in English? In dutch they are called ash wednesday (as woensdag) and white thursday (witte donderdag), but I don't know if these are the correct english names as well. Does anyone know what actually happened on these days and where they got their names from? And what about palm sunday?" In German, these days are called "Aschermittwoch" (same as in Dutch and English) and "Gründonnerstag"; "grün" here does not mean 'green' but is derived from an old word "greinen" which meant "to cry". Palm Sunday is called "Palmsonntag" in German.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GoodFriday/2/brzxg/Post.htm#85833Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:23:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:85833pemmicanAn English Etymological Dictionary gives the following explanation: "Good Friday c.1290, from good in sense of "holy" (e.g. the good book "the Bible," 1896), also, esp. of holy days or seasons observed by the church (c.1420); it was also applied to Christmas and Shrove Tuesday."http://www.englishforums.com/English/GoodFriday/brzxg/post.htm#85832Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:22:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:85832pemmicanIn Germany, it is called "Karfreitag" (with a k instead of ch, Abbie). INTERESTINGLY, this prefix "Kar-" is derived from an old word "Kara" which is related to the English word "care", mainly in its meaning "be worried (about)". So the actual meaning indeed is somehow more negative unlike "good" would imply something more positive...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutEnglishPluralS/3/pcln/Post.htm#81937Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:08:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:81937pemmicanHi Guest, the word is "Princes" Cheers -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesIllKemptMean/qjxp/post.htm#81493Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:42:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:81493pemmican"kempt" is an old past tense and past participle form of the verb "to comb". The noun 'comb' has originally been "kamb", a verb "kambjan" has been derived. The "j" caused Umlaut a--->e, the Old English form of the verb became 'kemban', pt and pp: 'kempt'. Later on 'kemban' was replaced by the regular form "to comb" (simply derived from the new noun "comb"), but the old past participle 'kempt' survived especially in its negation "unkempt". (----> Look up "unkempt" in your dictionary.) Hope, I could help! Cheers -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AreGrammarRulesHelpfulNative-Speakers/qwcn/post.htm#81240Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:51:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:81240pemmicanHello Xavier, you're right of course: Communication is one of the tasks of language. The Grammar is "late": Language follows special patterns (word order, inflection, cases, conjugation, etc) - language has to follow those patterns as without them, communication wouldn't be possible. The only reason why you understand what I say is: you know the language-structure. This structure works without any problems for your native language. For languages that you learn(ed) later, you need to know its structure to a certain level ---> GRAMMARS "filter out" these structures , show you HOW components are set together and how the whole complex works. Grammar therefore is necessary for anyone who learns a foreign language but also for those...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesUberMean/2/qgxk/Post.htm#81230Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:13:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:81230pemmican*lol* But it would certainly have been an übergorgious chocolate bar! Btw: The verse "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" is no longer the German national anthem. It's the one that starts with "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit". However, I'm still interested in the origin of 'über-', so just let me know if you find out something All the best -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesUberMean/2/qgxk/Post.htm#80980Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:45:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80980pemmicanThis is a very interesting topic... I came across "über" a couple of months ago and was first thinking there was something wrong with my ears... *lol* "über" is German, yep - and means "over, above, about, via". The prefix über- ("super-") occurs rarely, namely in special words like übergroß (larger than large), Übermensch (human being with special abilities), Übergott (larger than God), etc. Interestingly, it made its way into the English language and is becoming more and more common - I'd like to know where this word actually comes from... was it that chocolate bar mentioned in a posting before that made "über-" so popular? Would be great if you could tell me more about "über-" in English.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationOfHomer/pvlk/post.htm#80974Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:28:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80974pemmicanI always learned the stress to be on the 2nd syllable: . Not for Homer Simpson though, which is .http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutEnglishPluralS/2/pcln/Post.htm#80923Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80923pemmicanequivocal It would be erroneous to say that the suffixes in a), b) and c) are the same. Orthographically maybe, and that only would be for a) and b). Even then only for regular plurals and verbs. c) has an apostrophe which makes a world of a difference. They are different suffixes sharing some similar properties. Oh, I didn't say that, of course they're (historically) not the same, but all the forms fell together! In today's English, the "-s" IS the indicator for plural, 3rd person pres. and genitive. Even though you still SEE a difference in the genitive (apostrophe), in spoken language, you can't decide whether "mother(')s" is plural or genitive case unless you know the context. You can't know in spoken language...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutEnglishPluralS/2/pcln/Post.htm#77648Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:37:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:77648pemmicanThe "-s" is the most common suffix left in English by now, it took over several functions: a) plural indicator: one apple - two apples b) 3rd ps sg inflection indicator: sing - he sings c) genitive ending: Jon's house In my opinion, the -s in b) will certainly disappear sometime, it was already mentioned, that it is very often dropped already. In Scandinavian languages, such as Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, the inflection endings have vanished completely already and all persons take the same form of the verb. The -s will also disappear in the function of genitive indicator. There's a tendency to replace it by the preposition of and the following noun in the object case. E.g. Jon's house --> The house of Jon (this will get...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SatzproblemSimplePastPast-Progressive/pvzr/post.htm#74981Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:19:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74981pemmicanNur der liebe Gott, der sieht alles....http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutEnglishPluralS/pcln/post.htm#74980Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:11:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74980pemmican>>>>> All these troubles are from the ancient usage of 's'. The '-s' is not ancient. The -s actually is a simplification of forming the plural. English, as most Germanic languages, used to form plurals differently - rests of these old forms are still kept in: sheep - sheep (no special plural ending) ox - oxen (weak plural by adding -en) man - men woman - women mouse - mice goose - geese tooth - teeth foot - feet (all Umlaut-plurals) brother - brethren (two plural marks by adding the weak ending -en + Umlaut) child - children (three plural marks by adding the strong plural-ending -ir and the weak plural-ending -en + Umlaut) The plural -s came over from the Romance languages and replaced the former ways...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutEnglishPluralS/pcln/post.htm#74973Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:48:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74973pemmicanI doubt the plural ending -s will vanish at all, I'd rather say it'll become more common, also for words that have no special plural form by now, like e.g. "sheep".http://www.englishforums.com/English/SatzproblemSimplePastPast-Progressive/pvzr/post.htm#74970Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:36:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74970pemmicanWird das hier jetzt 'ne deutsche Ecke?? *hehe*http://www.englishforums.com/English/SatzproblemSimplePastPast-Progressive/pvzr/post.htm#74963Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:58:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74963pemmicanWas ist denn hier los??http://www.englishforums.com/English/RespondToRequest/2/gzjr/Post.htm#74726Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:08:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74726pemmicanIt means that I do not think that structure is more important than pragmatics.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WasGoingTo/xqvz/post.htm#74451Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:30:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74451pemmicanHmm... interesting. Actually, "about + ger" does not really sound wrong to my ears, maybe it can be used with either the gerund or the infinitive?!http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowToPronounceAnEnglishY/pbmc/post.htm#74361Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:27:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74361pemmicanI learned "why" (/wai/) to be the right pronunciation of the letter "Y". Btw - one question out of interest: Is Czech your native language, Ivo? I noticed you called Y "Ypsilon", I wonder if that's the Czech name for the letter?! Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Also/pbqc/post.htm#74359Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:17:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74359pemmicanThat works in a few cases, hanuman, as e.g. the 3rd example, Mr. M. mentioned: "...he has also not brought his book." "Also" by the way is usually negated by "not...either" or "neither" Your sentence "He has also not given me a pencil" would therefore (usually!) be "He has not given me a pencil, either." or "Neither has he given me a pencil.". A negation with "also not" is possible though when you want to put a stress on it - in these cases it is also possible to separate "has not" ("He has also not given me a pencil") but it should be avoided and replaced by neither or not...either.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassiveVoice/prvn/post.htm#74356Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:03:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74356pemmican"is -ed" is the passive voice of the Simple Present Tense. "has been -ed" is the passive voice of the Present Perfect Tense. The rules on the usage of the passive of Simple Present and Present Perfect are the same as the rules which are given on the usage of their active modus. I write a letter - A letter is written. I've written a letter - A letter has been written.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DirectSpeech/xqbh/post.htm#74353Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:50:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74353pemmicanReported speech is the same as indirect speech.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WasGoingTo/xqvz/post.htm#74351Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:48:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:74351pemmicanCan I use "about to" with a gerund, too? "I was about going to bed when the phone rang."?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThereAnEnglishVerbsList/nclx/post.htm#72359Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:56:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72359pemmicanIt's impossible to count all verbs, it would be a kind of "Sisyphos"- work: There are thousands of words that can be formed every day as well as words that die out, too. You can make up verbs, or words in general, easily and use them for what you need them - some verbs are quite resistent, some aren't and 'die' soon after they've been made-up. One important thing for you as a help: Only weak verbs are productive! I.e.: Any new verb which is formed by now will be a weak one with Simple Past tense and Past Participle ending in -ed. Strong and irregular verbs are no longer productive! Some of them have switched or tend to switch over to the weak conjugation (e.g. reach - raught - raught ==> reached - reached). No new verb...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PreteriteAfterJust/xmbm/post.htm#72350Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:29:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72350pemmicanI learned it the same way, pieanne did - and all my grammar books also say that "just" is a signal word for perfect tenses ---> at least in British English. Americn English tends to use "just" with the Simple Past. "Preterite" btw is applicable to English as well as for every Germanic language to refer to the Simple Past, even though the term "Simple Past indeed should be preferred. "Imperfect", as the Simple Past has been called in former times, is the one that is to be avoided in any case. "Preterite" had been a collective noun, used to mark Past Tenses in general (i.e. Simple Past, Present Perfect, Past Perfect, Imperfect, Aorist, etc) - it later on substituted the term "Imperfect" because it often lead to confusion with the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedsOrNeed/xzkn/post.htm#71066Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:13:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:71066pemmicanThis is a problem of messing-up "need" which is a) a full verb and b) a modal helping verb. a) As a full verb, "need" means "require, lack sth" or also "have to". In this case, need conjugates like all the other 'normal' verbs: 3rd person singular with -s, followed by an infinitive with "to", negated with "don't". Ex: I need money, he needs to go. He doesn't need to go. b) As a modal helping verb, "need" only appears in its negation or with a negated element in a sentence. It means "not to have to". In this case, need conjugates like a modal, i.e. esp.: NO -s for 3rd person singular, it is followed by an infinitive without "to", negated by "not". Ex: I needn't go, he needn't go. "need" in your example, Stephen, is a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/LieLay/xcjv/post.htm#69552Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:10:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:69552pemmicanThe "myself" could confuse though, a better way to differenciate is the following: "lay" is the causative form of the verb "lie", ----> i.e. "lay" means "to make something lie". So "I always lay my clothes on the bed" means that you "make them lie" on the bed. "I lay myself in bed" means that you "make yourself lie" in bed. (But don't confuse with "I lie in bed myself" - here it has to be "lie" (not lay)!) Greetings -Pemmicanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DrinkDrankDrunk/nncz/post.htm#68282Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:01:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:68282pemmicanIn those English dialects, "drank" is used as the past participle instead of standardized "drunk", it is of course right to say "to be drank". You should however avoid drank, as it is only used dialectical, and dialect speakers know the standardized form "drunk" anyways. Also, some people could regard the use of drank instead of drunk as uneducated, or - when they're not familiar with the dialect - as wrong.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoYouCallABabyCat/nxgd/post.htm#68239Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:20:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:68239pemmicanBaby names for animals are especially used for those that have been in domestic use for ages already. The less an animal is for domestic use, the less supposable is a name for its baby animal, though older names that have been in existance already were taken for other animals, too.