+0
Please correct the following text:

Speaking bombastically would not make you a good speaker. To be a good speaker, you ought to have a good grip of the language, wide vocabulary, and above all extensive general knowledge. The thesis put forward has to be supported by arguments, logic, and rationale. Only this way you will be able to imprint your words onto your audience's mind. Always speak in such a simplicity that your words flow in a rhythm and have soothing effect. Never ever try to put forward your argument in such a way that your audience feel that you have already reached a conclusion and asking them just to accept it. Rather, you should adopt such an approach that they feel like to find a conclusion on their own. This way you will be able to win their trust, and above all their respect which has no parallel in the world of politics.
1 2
Comments  
Speaking bombastically would not make you a good speaker. To be a good speaker, (Maybe you'd want to use 'To do so' instead to avoid repetition) you ought to have a good grip of the language, wide vocabulary, and above all extensive general knowledge. The thesis put forward has to be supported by arguments, logic, and rationale. Only this way you will be able to imprint your words onto (I think it should be 'into') your audience's mind. Always speak in such a simplicity that your words flow in a rhythm and have soothing effect. Never, ever try to put forward your argument in such a way that your audience [would] feel that you have already reached a conclusion and asking them just to accept it. Rather, you should adopt such an approach that they feel like to find a conclusion on their own. This way you will be able to win their trust, and above all their respect which has no parallel in the world of politics.
MadhulkSpeaking bombastically would not make you a good speaker. To be a good speaker, (Maybe you'd want to use 'To do so' instead to avoid repetition) you ought to have a good grip of the language, wide vocabulary, and above all extensive general knowledge. The thesis put forward has to be supported by arguments, logic, and rationale. Only this way you will be able to imprint your words onto (I think it should be 'into') your audience's mind. Always speak in such a simplicity that your words flow in a rhythm and have soothing effect. Never, ever try to put forward your argument in such a way that your audience [would] feel that you have already reached a conclusion and asking them just to accept it. Rather, you should adopt such an approach that they feel like to find a conclusion on their own. This way you will be able to win their trust, and above all their respect which has no parallel in the world of politics.

Hi Madhulk,

Are you sure that it should be into instead of onto?
Is the use of would necessary''?

Thank you for the help.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Well, it sounds better to me with 'into' since the mind is inside your head.
I can tell you another way of saying the same
thing: '... to imprint your audience's mind withyour words.' I'm 100% sure on this one.Emotion: wink
About the 'would'. The sentence doesn't sound to me right without a similar modal verb to 'would'.
I reckon that there´s no need to use conditional in the first sentence, but that´s just my personal feeling...
Next, I´d say " to imprint your words on/onto", just as the author suggests, since this verb (imprint) means that you have an influence on something or someone.
Hi,
DipsikI reckon that there´s no need to use conditional in the first sentence, but that´s just my personal feeling...
Next, I´d say " to imprint your words on/onto", just as the author suggests, since this verb (imprint) means that you have an influence on something or someone.

Would you please give some explanation of your first suggestion?

You are right about imprint onto.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi Jackson,

I don´t think "would" is wrong.However, "will" sounds more logical to me since you´re not (at least, not necessarily) speaking hypothetically.
The ability to "speak bombastically" is not something you (as a reader) would consider picking up. It may be something you´ve already acquired, and the author seems to intend to tell you that this won´t do.

Nevertheless, (and most importantly) I´m not a native. I myself try my hardest to learn English properly. Therefore, all above is just a student-loving-English kind of opinion.
As a native English-speaker, I might reword this passage thus:

Speaking bombastically would will not make you a good speaker. To be a good speaker, you ought to [or 'should'] have a good grip of the language, a wide vocabulary, and above all an extensive general knowledge. The thesis put forward has to be supported by arguments, logic, and rationale. Only this way you will you be able to imprint your words onto your audience's mind. Always speak in with such a simplicity that your words flow in a rhythmically and have a soothing effect. Never ever try to put forward your argument in such a way that your audience feel that you have already reached a conclusion and are asking them just to accept it. Rather, you should adopt such an approach such that they feel like to as though they are find reaching a conclusion on their own. This way you will be able to win their trust, and above all their respect, which has no parallel in the world of politics.
DipsikHi Jackson,

I don´t think "would" is wrong.However, "will" sounds more logical to me since you´re not (at least, not necessarily) speaking hypothetically.
The ability to "speak bombastically" is not something you (as a reader) would consider picking up. It may be something you´ve already acquired, and the author seems to intend to tell you that this won´t do.

Nevertheless, (and most importantly) I´m not a native. I myself try my hardest to learn English properly. Therefore, all above is just a student-loving-English kind of opinion.

Hi Dipsik,

I have been told that would can be used:
1: as a past form of will or shall
2: when speaking hypothetically
3: to make request, suggestion, voice opinion, etc

You can say that I used would in the third sense - to voice my opinion or to make suggestion. What do you say?

I have heard people who have no logic or rationale in what they say. They still speak bombastically because they are under the impression that this will make them good speaker in spite of their limited knowledge. Speaking bombastically is not the thing I'm speaking against and as you say it might be something someone already have acquired or inherited. If you speak bombastically and also uses reason and logic then you would be considered a good speaker. What do you say?

Thanks for all the help.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more