http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aranchhand&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:ranchhand'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferenceBetweenOver/bllpz/post.htm#141516Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:46:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:141516ranchhandI don't know if this collocation is used in ESL/EFL locations other than Japan, but in Japan, it's really common. It's very likely a construction that was put in a textbook at one time and like so many other mistaken phrases, was believed to be the normal one for English. As others have related, it is not natural English at all. These fossilized "errors" are extremely.difficult to eradicate. You can tell teachers time after time that the phrase is, "Time's up" and in the very next class, out will come, "Time's over".http://www.englishforums.com/English/DontDidnt/bkgxd/post.htm#134736Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:49:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:134736ranchhandClive wrote: 2. You know how I didn't have my schedule? I had to come to this fitness center so early today to figure out my schedule. "didn't" means you didn't have it in the past but now, at the time of speaking, you do have it. Best wishes, Clive There's nothing in this that means that this person is now in possession of the schedule. There could have been continued screw ups at the fitness center that precluded the speaker getting the schedule.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsAroundAndGoingTo/bgcqv/post.htm#113876Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:22:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:113876ranchhandinfinity wrote: I don't know when it was, but the example of connecting a verb and proverb was discussed here in this forum. Some said, "Do you know if she is around and going to the meeting?" was ungrammatical, and the other said it might have been but it sounded perfectly OK. Then I am wondering if this sentence below is OK. I'll venture that "Do you know if she is around and going to the meeting?" is grammatical. It's just an ellipted, "Do you know if she is around and going to the meeting?" He has a great personality and been the most popular kid in my class. To my mind, this doesn't work either grammatically or semantically. He has a great personality and is the most popular kid in my class.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/2/bzrmr/Post.htm#110534Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:00:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110534ranchhandORIGINAL SENTENCE: Otter and boar shouldn't have been domesticated either. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Taka wrote: Well, I'm afraid talking about that matter might derail the main point of the original question, but I say this much. Personally, I don't think that 'should' is for the professional use only. I think 'should' implies strong conviction of one's logic. (b)RanchHand: I'm afraid you don't understand. I should have made myself more clear. 'should' isn't of course, just for "professional" use. That would be silly. Language is for everyone. But I believe that you're mistaken when you say that " 'should' implies strong conviction of one's logic". It's not quite as simple as that. 'should' equates to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IWishIWasWereThere/2/bzvrw/Post.htm#110497Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:22:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110497ranchhandPaco wrote: If you restrict your search domain to ".edu", the result would be like this: "If I were you" 12,000 "If I was you" 689. I think people come here to learn the variety of English spoken by educated people. ================= The language scientists of the LGSWE spent ten long years studying, that's STUDYING these differences. In that book, one can find all sorts of differences wherein certain language/collocations are rarely used in one of the four registers; speech, academic prose, newspapers, or fiction It should be readily apparent to even the most casual observer that the language used within the realm of .edu would tend to be different from that used in other registers of English. Educated...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Which/2/bzbnb/Post.htm#110495Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:05:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110495ranchhandThank you Jim. Succinctly put.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IWishIWasWereThere/bzvrw/post.htm#110197Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:35:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110197ranchhand"You may sometimes hear "was" used, since the subjunctive is relatively uncommon in English ..." :s Googled: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,060,000 English pages for "if I were". "... and people sometimes forget to use it, ... ." :s Googled: Results 1 - 10 of about 3,560,000 English pages for "if I was".http://www.englishforums.com/English/IWentRestaurantCafe/bzgdr/post.htm#109894Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:35:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109894ranchhandI went to a restaurant and a cafe. Is it possible to use the second article A? I mean,"i went to a restaurant and A cafe" ================= Absolutely!http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionTag/bzznw/post.htm#109775Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:39:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109775ranchhandSince a tag is simply asking for an affirmation of what one already believes, either positively or negatively, tags with such a low degree of certainty are uncommon. If your feeling is marked by such unsureness, then the tendency wouldn't be to use a tag, though it's not impossible. They might have played chess, don't you think? Do you think they might have played chess? They might have played chess, mightn't they? {I'd suggest this one is quite uncommon} They might have played chess, might they not have? {even more so}http://www.englishforums.com/English/IWishIWasWereThere/bzvrw/post.htm#109280Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:54:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109280ranchhandWhich is grammatically correct and why: I wish I were there. OR I wish I was there. ================= Both are grammatically correct because in modern English, the only thing needed to express a counterfactual situation is a past tense verb. If I was you = I'm not you, just as, If I were you = I'm not you. It works the same way with 'wish'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowConstructSentence/bzdvx/post.htm#109041Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109041ranchhand1 . The dollar has plunged this month . 2 . There has been a plunge in the dollar this month . Which one looks better to you , and why ? ============== They both look fine, Naveem. I'd say that the context would determine which one was used.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AAnIndefiniteArticle/bzddv/post.htm#109040Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:06:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109040ranchhandThe rules that developed for writing grew out of how ENLs spoke. We follow rules of phonology, not prescriptions. CGEL: The choice between 'a' and 'an' depends purely on the phonological context. The liaison from occurs before a vowel sound, not before particular letters. This is unproblematic as far as speech is concerned, but in writing the status of expressions like ... is less clear. ============== They point out that words like, habitual/heroic/historical/hotel/hysterical are examples that, when spoken in isolation, all have initial /h/ sound but it is unstressed. When we use these words in context in speech, we often get, for example "an abitual criminal" where the /h/ is lost.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadntQuestions/bzddw/post.htm#109027Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:42:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109027ranchhandDo these have the same meaning? RH: No, they don't, Jack. 1. If you had taken that course, did you find it useful? (Is 'had taken' past participle for conditionals only? I shouldn't use this right? #2 is better?) RH: Allowing that there might be a meaning that hasn't occurred to me, this sentence is nonsensical, Jack. This means, You didn't take the course and I know that. If I choose to use "If you had taken the course", anything in the second clause will be speculation on my part; ..., you would have//almost certainly would have/probably would have/ may have/ might have enjoyed it/flunked it/passed it/dropped out of it/met a wonderful girl/etc. ========================= 2. If you took that course, did you find it...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AsRequestBasedRequest/bzcqp/post.htm#109015Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:10:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109015ranchhandWe get a slightly different story when we use only "as per", again strictly for UK pages: Googled: Results 1 - 10 of about 823,000 for "as per". For the full phrase, I got, Results 1 - 3 of about 7 for "as per the client's request".http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/2/bzrmr/Post.htm#108617Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:09:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108617ranchhand"«Wild» modifies «sheep» alone. It is to distinguish «wild sheep» from «domestic sheep»." Good morning, Goldmund, It hardly seems possible that in this sentence there is any attempt to distinguish between wild and domestic sheep. As this is not my area, I've had to rely on other sources. This site, below, states that Peking Man lived long before animals were domesticated. +++++++++++++ http://northspringer.tripod.com/pekingsite/id1.html "The fossils found have been determined to be approximately 130,000 years old, which would make the pre-humans to be from the Middle Pleistocene era." +++++++++++++ ============ The first domestic animal was probably the dog, possibly as early as 10000 BCE in the Natufian culture of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RulesPartsSpeechComputer-Project/bzbml/post.htm#108611Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:47:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108611ranchhandMuch much too big a project for someone who has had no formal training in grammar, Terra. This has already been done by others more knowlegeable in language. Try, "Parse a Sentence" at http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AGoodTimeGoodMusic/bvlwz/post.htm#108605Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:42:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108605ranchhandBut, I think as I wrote an example about "time" above, "time" is also an uncountable none, isn't it? ============= This meaning of 'time' is different than clock time, M&M. This is like, I had a good occasion. OR I had a good event. "a time to remember" means a period of time which was memorablehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Which/bzbnb/post.htm#108603Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:36:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108603ranchhandJack wrote: According to Mishima, it is possible for Balinese parents to have a son and a daughter, both of which have the same first name. (Is 'have' wrong here? Isn't 'have' referring to 'a son' and 'a daughter' ? If it is supposed to be 'has' why? What is the subject for 'has' ?) RH: Nope, 'have' is correct. It refers to the two together, Jack. 'both' takes a plural verb in English because it makes reference to two. My son and daughter are 10. Both are skiers. Each of them has a different pet.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/4/bvmrh/Post.htm#108602Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:30:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108602ranchhandHere's my email if you feel like sending it along, Goldmund. Regards, RHhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/2/bzrmr/Post.htm#108375Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:20:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108375ranchhandYes, Taka, I'm a native speaker. I look forward to your comments.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/bzrmr/post.htm#108357Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:44:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108357ranchhandThank you, Taka, for your response. The reason for my question is this. I believe that something you wrote was possibly, semantically inappropriate for the situation. I viewed it as a valuable teaching moment and I hope you'll view it in the same manner. You said: "Isn't it possible to take that 'wild' as something like 'fierce'? Otter and boar shouldn't have been domesticated either." Unless a person has some degree of personal knowledge on a subject and this usually equates to a fairly substantial level, using the modal 'should' sounds strange. Read the following, please. It's from The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. +++++++++++++++ page 142 "Of the modals in the logical probability hierarchy, and are...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/bzrmr/post.htm#108321Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:17:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108321ranchhandTaka wrote: Otter and boar shouldn't have been domesticated either. RH: Taka, may I ask you a question? My question might seem a bit intrusive but I assure you it is not intended in this fashion. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. Do you consider yourself to be an expert or even a person with a great deal of knowledge of Peking man and this era?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeriesOfItems/bzrmr/post.htm#108298Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:27:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108298ranchhandThe sentence: The residues found in Peking Man's caves showed that 70 percent of his diet consisted of venison and the other 30 percent of whatever else he was able to hunt or trap---otter, boar, and wild sheep, buffalo, rhinoceros, even tiger. Why not 'otter, boar, wild sheep, buffalo, rhinocoros, and even tiger'? Well, my understanding is, 'sheep, buffalo, rhinoceros, even tiger' are all modified by 'wild' (i.e. ...and wild ones ), but I'm not sure on this one. Am I right or wrong? ==================== I think that 'wild' refers to only 'sheep', Taka but I'm not sure that the distinction needs to be made. Had sheep been domesticated by that time. This area of study is not my long suit.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/3/bvmrh/Post.htm#108296Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:22:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108296ranchhandI am sorry for my harsh message of yesterday. It was written hastily. I did not mean what I said. I hope that it did not offend you. Kindest regards, Goldmund =============== I never saw it, Goldmund. It was censored. But I can tell you honestly, it would not have offended me. I appreciate honesty.http://www.englishforums.com/English/FragmentedSentences/bvqrd/post.htm#108202Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:59:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108202ranchhandIt is a great list and I hope it helps ESLs realize that "sentence fragments" are exceedingly common indeed. The LGSWE calls them "non-clausal material" , perhaps to get away from the pejorative connotations 'sentence fragments' holds. ============= LGSWE: ... non-clausal material is found in writing as well as speech and extends far beyond ellipsis, where missing elements can be precisely recovered from the context. ... two defining characteristics ... : a) internally it cannot be analysed in terms of clause structure, and b) it is not analysable as part of any neighbouring clause. Interestingly, we find ncm in running written text ... , ncm is also found occasionally in academic prose, especially in textbooks: ncm is far...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhraseNeedsToExplain/bzrzl/post.htm#108193Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:32:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108193ranchhandTonyoung, There are many many phrases produced around the world that are semi-English. I'm not knocking these collocations, for the producers of such phrases, they likely have a full meaning. I have no idea if "think with foot" is the creation of an ENL or an ESL. Your guess would be as good as mine as to the meaning. ===================== This, "Phrase needs to explain!" sounds strange when used in the active voice. Phrase needs to BE explainED!http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/3/bvmrh/Post.htm#108190Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:15:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108190ranchhandMr Pedantic wrote: I'd agree with Paco. RanchHand: A momentary aside. I wonder, how are we to gloss this ? Does it mean that Mr Pedantic agrees with 80% of what Paco says? Or does it mean something expressing even less certainty? Or does it mean, wrt to certainty, the same thing as ? MR Pedantic: "(If I were asked to give my opinion,) I'd agree with Paco." RH: means the same thing as . It is an expression that denotes 100% agreement. It wasn't some esoteric potential, it prefaced a real situation wherein he set out the reasons for his agreement. This use of 'would' seems to contradict previous statements by this contributor on the meaning of 'would'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/3/bvmrh/Post.htm#108189Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:01:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:108189ranchhandDear Ranchhand, I commend to you the words of Heine: «Doch die Kastraten klagten, Als ich meine Stimm erhob; Sie klagten und sie sagten: Ich sänge viel zu grob.» Kind regards, Goldmund ++++++++++++++++ Dear Goldmund, There's no need to beat around the bush, Goldmund, you can speak your mind here at English Forums. I'm afraid my knowledge of German doesn't go beyond a few pat phrases. Regards, RHhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThePluralOfGenius/bvqjm/post.htm#107993Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:10:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107993ranchhandGoogled www: 1,090,000 English pages for "geniuses". 126,000 English pages for "genii". Googled UK pages only: 65,400 for "geniuses". 14,300 for "genii".http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/2/bvmrh/Post.htm#107866Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:17:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107866ranchhandMr Pedantic wrote: I'd agree with Paco. RanchHand: A momentary aside. I wonder, how are we to gloss this ? Does it mean that Mr Pedantic agrees with 80% of what Paco says? Or does it mean something expressing even less certainty? Or does it mean, wrt to certainty, the same thing as ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPastPerfect-Tense/bvpqb/post.htm#107863Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:59:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107863ranchhandInfinity wrote: Thanks again, Ranchhand. RH: Again, my pleasure. Infinity: Actually I’d realized the inconsistency and edited it before your post. RH: Perfect use of the past perfect. I: I perfectly understand that it’s more usual to use Present Perfect + Simple Past on that sentence. But I wonder whether the sentences below make sense or not. “The burden on the assignment (I have been working on) has gotten greater lately, so I took a day off last Sunday.” or "It's gotten colder in Osaka lately, I bought a new overcoat last Friday." RH: I don't see anything wrong with them, Infinity.http://www.englishforums.com/English/YouHaveYouHaveGot/bvpmw/post.htm#107861Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:51:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107861ranchhandWhat possible difference could it make? These are the nuances that are lost on those who speak BrE. Such is the nature of dialectal use. BrEers similarly aren't fluent in the use of 'gotten'. NaEers can't grasp the nuances of some BrE uses unless they've had sufficient exposure to them. TV ads in North America state, "Got milk". If I'm not mistaken, whichever ISP it is that uses "You've got mail!" went to court in an attempt to preserve that little phrase solely for their own use. =============== Mr Pedantic wrote: I've no idea how or why this useful little word acquired such a bad reputation. RH: For the same simple reason that so many other aspects of language have been errantly proscribed; a profound ignorance of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPastPerfect-Tense/bvpqb/post.htm#107835Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:57:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107835ranchhandThank you very much ranchhand! I have one more question. RH: You're very welcome, Infinity. Ask as many as you'd like. ================== Infinity wrote: When you report what someone said, for instance, Tuesday, Kate said this: “I have been too busy to do anything for my kids lately, so I decided to take a day off tomorrow.” Friday, if you want to report what she said, can you say “Kate said that she had been too busy to do anything for her kids prior to Wednesday, so she decided to take a day off {yesterday ???}.” ? RanchHand: Notice the brackets I've place around 'yesterday' and the question marks, Infintity. Don't you mean to say 'the day before yesterday' meaning 'Wednesday'? Kate spoke on Tuesday, took...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CoolBiz/bvplz/post.htm#107831Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:24:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107831ranchhandYes, that's what I suspect. Then : "Down the throttle"? =============== RH: Better, and figuratively speaking, of course, "This summer, let's ease up on that throttle" OR "Throttle back on energy use" ++++++++++++++++++++ Now some LDP members are trying to get Koizumi's policies down. So "down the throttle" would be a nice motto for their political campaign. =============== RH: WRT to politicians, better to just "throttle them", Paco, in the literal sense; jokingly meant of course, because I don't suggest any bodily harm to anyone.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CoolBiz/bvplz/post.htm#107829Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:15:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107829ranchhandWorkers at central government ministries in Japan will not be wearing jackets and ties this summer under a campaign to save energy... They call it 'Cool Biz Campaign'. I think the idea is good, but the phrase is one of the worst Japlish. Could you suggest any good catch phrase? ================== Itasan, I think it's one of the better ones I've heard in Japan. I can't think of anything catchier but I'm not an ad man.http://www.englishforums.com/English/InflectedPeriphrasticGenitive/bvpjk/post.htm#107827Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:09:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107827ranchhandI would say 'an hour-and-a-half('s)' (with or without hyphens) RH: I've never ever heard anyone say, "An hour hyphen and hyphen a hyphen half", Mr M.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowToReadTheYearDate/bvmgg/post.htm#107824Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:56:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107824ranchhandI agree with Goldmund but let me also suggest that the words collocated with the year influence how we say it. If we use, "In the year", I'd say we often {sometimes??} use, In the year ten oh three; in the year fourteen forty three; in seventeen seventy six; in ten sixty six In the sixties hit by Zager & Evans, all the years were sung as above. Having said this, I still believe that the vast majority of ENLs do not yet use the form "twenty oh ___" to talk about the early years of this century, though again, I could be wrong. =============== http://frodisman.com/2525.html "In The Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)" Zager & Evans In the year 2525 {twenty five twenty five If man is still alive If woman can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPastPerfect-Tense/bvpqb/post.htm#107823Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:35:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107823ranchhandInfinity wrote: A bit confusing to me here is the first sentence. I have been busy for the last two weeks, so I took a day off today. Doesn’t this mean I am not at my office today? What I mean is that the day before this ‘today’ I must have said something like, “I’ve been busy for the last two weeks, so I decided to take a day off tomorrow.” If my busy days were over by the night before, I don’t know why the past perfect doesn’t work here. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RanchHand: You have to be very careful about when the sentence is spoken. The crucial words "for the last two weeks" makes the meaning one of "up to now", Infinity, which makes the past perfect impossible. It almost certainly means that, "I am not at...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPastPerfect-Tense/bvpqb/post.htm#107822Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:11:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107822ranchhandDear teachers; Please check the following sentences. 1. I have been busy for the last two weeks, so I took a day off today. Or 2. I had been busy for the last two weeks, so I took a day off today. RanchHand: #1 is fine, but in #2 the 'had' doesn't work. The meaning of "have+PP" means "up to now" which is exactly what "for the last two weeks" means. We don't use past perfect, "had+PP" to talk about a time sequence that ends with NOW. #2 would work in a situation like this; 2A. I got back from London on Wednesday. I had been busy for the preceding two weeks and I hadn't had any chance for a day off so I took a day off today. =================== Also is it possible to say, 3. I have been busy lately, so I decided...http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsUsage/2/bvmrh/Post.htm#107816Sun, 12 Jun 2005 04:34:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107816ranchhandPaco wrote: I think it is quite useful to have a talk with you about this matter. We ESL students learn English mostly through books written by linguistic scholars and 'understand' English in a way somehow similar to the way we learn mathematics. RanchHand: This is simply not the case, Paco. ESLs have up to now, largely learned English, not from linguists, but from the grammar of prescriptivists. The textbooks wouldn't be so riddled with errors and inappropriate collocations and unnatural language if administrators followed the teachings of language science. ====================== Paco: We learn English sentences mostly in written forms logically analyzing what word has what function and what word is connected to what word....http://www.englishforums.com/English/YouHaveYouHaveGot/bvpmw/post.htm#107807Sun, 12 Jun 2005 03:50:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107807ranchhandIs there any difference in saying "You have new messages" and "You've got new messages". As far as I know, they're both correct, aren't they? Or is one more common than the other? ================== Using 'have + got' makes it more emphatic and khoff is probably correct that this structure is used more in everyday speech. Since it's used to be more emphatic, it likely is used less than the neutral/more neutral, "you have ..."http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenPartysOver/bvpvb/post.htm#107585Sat, 11 Jun 2005 06:31:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107585ranchhand3. ?? Until what time you guys were there? 3a. Until what time WERE you guys there? 3b. What time were you guys there till? 3c. What time were you guys there until?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichIsTheCorrectAnswer/bvxlp/post.htm#107568Sat, 11 Jun 2005 04:20:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107568ranchhandCalifJim wrote: You are compounding the problem here, however, by using "number of" together with "there is/are", which, at least in relaxed style, can almost always be "there is" no matter what the grammatical number of the following expression. So, "there is" can be used, but not in very formal styles. ============= Jim's right, in fact, in corpus based studies, is "somewhat more common in conversation than the standard construction with plural verb plus plural noun phrase". This extends to . Here's your keys. Where's your books. I wanna look up a word. How's things? How's tricks? How's mum and dad? One thing to note is that the verb is most often a contracted form, ie. There's two men at the door.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Where/bvpck/post.htm#107560Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:53:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107560ranchhand"Much of industry is concerned with batch production 'where' perhaps one type of item is made during the morning and another during the afternoon" I wonder if 'where' here stands for 'batch production' or 'industry'. ================= Substitute 'in which' for 'where' and see if that helps you, Jack. Or try making it into two separate sentences and take out 'where and put the nouns in question back in place. "Much of industry is concerned with batch production. perhaps one type of item is made during the morning and another during the afternoon" "Much of industry is concerned with batch production. With industry perhaps one type of item is made during the morning and another during the afternoon". "Much of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/If/bvnqb/post.htm#107549Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:22:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107549ranchhandMr Pedantic wrote: So we have two uses of 'could' here: i) 'could' = tentative version of 'can' (i.e. the speaker is suggesting a course of action) ii) 'could' = 'would be able to' (i.e. the finishing of the homework would make a course of action possible) So contextually, there's a world of difference between them. And the girl in question would know it. +++++++++++++++++ i) 'could' = tentative version of 'can' (i.e. the speaker is suggesting a course of action) ii) 'could' = 'would be able to' (i.e. the finishing of the homework would make a course of action possible) That's right, the speaker is suggesting a course of action. In i), that course of action for the less tentative 'can' means 'will be able to'. In...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowShouldISay/bvxnk/post.htm#107542Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:00:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107542ranchhandHow should I say THIS? If I'm speaking and I need to spell a dificult word and also want to add a diferent word to let the listener understand each letter so, should I say, "B" as in Buble, or "B" like in Buble.? ++++++++++++ I think that Guest just wanted to know how we say it, Paco, not what words to use. Yes, Guest, we say, {letter} as in {word} OR {letter} like in {word}. The first style would tend to be used in more formal circumstances, the latter is more casual.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheReasonIsBecause/3/bvlhl/Post.htm#107538Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:48:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107538ranchhandMr Pedantic wrote: Grammar isn't everything, K. It's always worth considering the context of a phrase. In this instance, the context includes the fact that while perfectly grammatical, and commonly used, it will sound strange or flabby or sloppy to some people, since (as CJ has demonstrated) it suggests the speaker hasn't thought about what he's saying. So the phrase is probably best avoided. +++++++++++++++++++++++ It is also worth considering the advice of experts. As Katsudon clearly pointed out, =============== AHD: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C002/024.html A traditional rule holds that the construction "the reason is because" is redundant, and should be avoided in favor of "the reason is that". The usage is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Imagine/bvmvg/post.htm#107254Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:25:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107254ranchhandRH stated: The actual event is not so crucial to the language choice; rather it is the speaker's focus. Even when it had finished, ie. a new program comes on, the speaker could say, 6. Imagine that it was my friend that was doing that. Wouldn't it be cool? To which Jack replied: So are you say using past tense can have the same meaning as using past perfect for this type of sentence. RanchHand: It's not so much for "this type of sentence", Jack, as it is for this type of situation. 6. Imagine that it had been my friend that was doing that. Wouldn't it be cool? 6A. Imagine that it was my friend that was doing that. Wouldn't it be cool? Yes, I'm saying that 6 or 6A are both possible. Sentence 6 shows the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ItThisThat/bvnjn/post.htm#107131Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:24:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:107131ranchhandcould you tell me which one is correct? I think, this/that/it was a film worth seeing. ============= RH: It depends on the context. Two folks leaving a movie theatre may well use 'that'. 'this' tends to be used with the present tense, and looking at the movie page in the newspaper, eg. "I think this is a film worth seeing." But those same people leaving a movie theater could gesture to a poster or back to the theater and use "I think this was a ...". Certainly, 'it' can be used for both but we tend to introduce something with the demonstrative pronouns, 'this' and 'that'. Once introduced; A: "What about 'When Harry Met Sally'?" B: "I think it is/was a film ..."http://www.englishforums.com/English/IDontThink/bvmnn/post.htm#106967Thu, 09 Jun 2005 14:33:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:106967ranchhandWhat do these mean? I don't get how I should use them. 1. I don't think she would lend it to you. 2. I don't think she will lend it to you. 3. I don't think she is going to lend it to you. RH: All have the same time focus, ahead of now and all express doubt as to whether 'she' lends you the hairdryer. all express 100% but they are modified, reduced in certainty level by "I don't think", which makes them semantically equal to, She probably won't lend it to you.