+0

Hi there,

Could you tell me what is different or are differences between these two words?


I would like to migrate / immigrate to State one day.

I migrated / immigrated to State few year ago from Japan.


Cheers

+1
John AkiI would like to migrate / immigrate to State one day.

I would like to emigrate to the United States one day.

John AkiI migrated / immigrated to State few year ago from Japan.

I immigrated [here / to the United States] from Japan a few years ago.


When you are in the country you come from and you're going to move to another country, you are going to emigrate there.

When you are in the country you came to and you have moved from another country, you have immigrated there.

CJ

1 2
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Thanks Mr CJ,

Please advise us this concept in English, in Japanese language No 2 is a nature thing whereas No 3 is on the purpose. This is why two ways and phrases to describe the same thing in our language.


1) The road slants, tiles, slant and slope to a side. (Nature, the way it is)

2) The roof slants to downward. (The way it is)

3) The roof is slanted to downward. (Does this imply or mean that it is done by purposely? (human of course) or not different than second one to you?)


He asked me this issue relative to/ relevant to that problem. (Both words mean "related to" or "connected to" in)here am I correct?)

My age is not relative to/ relevant to whether I am qualified for it. (Same above)

These questions are not relative / relevant. (Both mean related and connected)


Relative to my age I am considered to be young in our class. (Comparative)


Thanks again in advance~

John Aki

John Aki

1) The road slants, tilts, slants and slopes to a side. (Nature, the way it is)

2) The roof slants to downward. (The way it is)

3) The roof is slanted to downward. (Does this imply or mean that it is done by purposely? (human of course) or not different than second one to you?)

2) is an objective description of the roof — what you call "the way it is".

3) is ambiguous in terms of your question.

We normally take it to mean the same as 2). That is, we think of it as a description.

But if the context allows it (which is rare in this example), we can also take it as an action taken upon the roof to cause it to slant downward — what you call "purposely".

John Aki

He asked me this issue relative to/ relevant to that problem. (Both words mean "related to" or "connected to" in)here am I correct?) Yes, but "relevant" adds the ideas of appropriate, pertinent, and important.

My age is not relative to/ relevant to whether I am qualified for it. (Same above)

These questions are not relative / relevant. (Both mean related and connected)

Relative to my age I am considered to be young in our class. (Comparative) Correct.

CJ

Same as,

He killed by an accident.

He was killed by an accident.

Do these two sentences make any different meanings to you at all?


Cheers

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
John Aki

Same as,

He killed by an accident. Not possible.

He was killed by an accident. Correct. Passive voice.

Do these two sentences make any different meanings to you at all? The first one is impossible, so it has no meaning, so it's not possible to compare meanings.


Cheers

I may be able to get back to you tomorrow on this topic, but I do not have the time to help you further just now.

CJ

Cheers Sir,

Let's talk about this topic tomorrow then,


I seemed to hear this on the movies,

"He died or killed in the car accident few years ago. (Active passive)

He was died or killed in the car accident few years ago. (Passive voice, which make more sense to me as he couldn't die or kill by himself. Have to be someone or something)

Same as the roof is sloped due to water can run out.


Cheers

John Aki

"He died or killed in the car accident few years ago.

He was died or killed in the car accident few years ago.

kill = to cause (someone) to die

Here we have two different words. kill. die.


Here's a better example to understand what's confusing you.

The money was stolen.

1) This could be a passive voice construction.
Somebody did something related to the money. There was an action. Somebody stole the money.

We analyze it thus:

[The money]subject [was stolen]verb.

2) This could be a description. Not a passive voice construction. There is no action. The money was stolen money. We are saying what kind of money it was.

We analyze it thus:

[The money]subject [was]verb [stolen]adjective.


A man walked into a convenience store and took money out of the cash register while the attendant was not looking.
[He stole the money. The money was stolen. (action)]

Then he left with the money and went home. But on the way home, the money fell out of his pocket onto the street, and he didn't notice it.

Later a woman was passing by and found the money on the street. She was amazed at how much money it was, and she was suspicious that it was stolen money, so she reported it to the police.
[She thought: This is stolen money. She thought that the money was stolen. (She is describing the money.)]


You can see that the two ways of thinking of "The money was stolen" are almost exactly the same. It takes more words in the sentence to make them sound different.

A by-phrase and a past tense makes the sentence more definitely a passive voice sentence:

The money was stolen by a convenience store customer.

A present tense (and no by-phrase) (and even a demonstrative like 'this' or 'that') makes the sentence more like a descriptive sentence:

This money is stolen.

CJ

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Thanks Sir,

I think (that) I am clarified on this issue for now.


John Aki

Show more