|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 14, 2008 10:48:53 GMT 1
The simile "as hard as nails" means which nails: those at fingertips or those hammered on?
What does a native speaker understand hearing this?:
What is the name of your golf club?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 14, 2008 10:54:03 GMT 1
I was always amused by differences between two languages in case of sound expressions.
E.g., an English dog barks Bow Wow or Woof Woof, while a Polish dog utters Hau Hau [how how].
Miau and Miaow are the same.
Sneezing sound: Atchooo! versus Aaaapsik [a:psheek].
Do you know other sounds?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 15, 2008 1:53:21 GMT 1
The simile "as hard as nails" means which nails: those at fingertips or those hammered on? What does a native speaker understand hearing this?: What is the name of your golf club?I'm pretty sure it refers to the kind you hammer on. I never imagined that it could mean the ones on your fingertips! 'What is the name of your golf club?' This asks what the name is of the place you go to play golf, the 'club' you have joined for the privilege of using their golf course and having drinks in their clubhouse! If you were inquiring about the actual instrument you swing and hit the ball with, you would probably ask, 'what type of golf club is that?' |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 16, 2008 20:19:23 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure it refers to the kind you hammer on. I never imagined that it could mean the ones on your fingertips! OK, I must believe you. hahahahaha Thanks for this and in advance thank you for all other helpful responses in the future. Hmm, I am still sceptical. I tend to believe it is not so clear after all. Heairing "What type is your gold club?" one can answer with this:" It is a long range, hard-tip club." Or " it is a fibre glass ultraflexible one." Or whatever of this sort. Am I not right? Please, can you go on convincing me? hahahaha |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 16, 2008 23:09:01 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure it refers to the kind you hammer on. I never imagined that it could mean the ones on your fingertips! OK, I must believe you. hahahahaha Thanks for this and in advance thank you for all other helpful responses in the future. Hmm, I am still sceptical. I tend to believe it is not so clear after all. Heairing "What type is your gold club?" one can answer with this:" It is a long range, hard-tip club." Or " it is a fibre glass ultraflexible one." Or whatever of this sort. Am I not right? Please, can you go on convincing me? hahahaha Yes, you would answer 'What type is your golf club?' with those answers: long range, hard-tip, etc. That is why I said you would answer the question 'What is the name of your golf club?' by telling the name of the club you joined to play golf. You wouldn't use the word 'name' when inquiring about the actual instrument you swing, you would probably say 'what type or brand is your golf club?', but you would use the word 'name' when inquiring about the organization known as a 'golf club'. Still confused? |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 20, 2008 2:30:33 GMT 1
Yes, great! hahaha You seem very proficient in English! Where did you learn??? hahaha Jeanne, one quick question, from a lesson on superstitions: what do people do when they touch wood? I think what you are referring to is when someone says something they hope won't happen, they 'touch wood' to prevent it from happening. For example, someone might say, "I haven't been sick this winter. Touch wood." (and they touch something nearby made of wood) And actually, the phrase used more frequently than 'touch wood' is 'knock on wood', used for the same purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 21, 2008 8:40:43 GMT 1
I think what you are referring to is when someone says something they hope won't happen, they 'touch wood' to prevent it from happening. For example, someone might say, "I haven't been sick this winter. Touch wood." (and they touch something nearby made of wood) And actually, the phrase used more frequently than 'touch wood' is 'knock on wood', used for the same purpose. Hey, the same thing is on the Polish list of superstitions. I asked because I thought it couldn`t be so simple. But it is, except that Poles don`t merely touch wood, they knock on it with a bent index finger and the Polish expression sounds: Odpukać (knock it on). |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 22, 2008 1:51:11 GMT 1
Hey, the same thing is on the Polish list of superstitions. I asked because I thought it couldn`t be so simple. But it is, except that Poles don`t merely touch wood, they knock on it with a bent index finger and the Polish expression sounds: Odpukać (knock it on). Yes, we do the exact same thing with the index finger when we say, 'Knock on wood.' I've actually only heard one person say 'touch wood' and he was a Canadian. Around here people say 'Knock...' |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 25, 2008 22:06:19 GMT 1
Hey, the same thing is on the Polish list of superstitions. I asked because I thought it couldn`t be so simple. But it is, except that Poles don`t merely touch wood, they knock on it with a bent index finger and the Polish expression sounds: Odpukać (knock it on). Yes, we do the exact same thing with the index finger when we say, 'Knock on wood.' I've actually only heard one person say 'touch wood' and he was a Canadian. Around here people say 'Knock...' It must be a British usage then. The books I use at school are all from Britain. Hey, btw, I once had a book in my hands which was published in the USA but it was a copy of a title which had been published by the British first. Americans bought the license or whatever. In the British publication there was a unit with a dialogue between a young couple, a boy and girl, living together, who argue what to do in the evening. She wants to watch TV, he wants to go out. They fall out and finally he leaves. In the American version there were two young men. One wanted to watch TV, the other prefered to go to the gym. They fall out and one leaves the house. I have always wondered - wasn`t it a quarrel between gay lovers? Do such contexts appear in American textbooks at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 26, 2008 11:40:49 GMT 1
In a sentence:
I`d rather have stayed at home last night.
which period does our preference refer to? Present or past? Does it mean: I`d rather now or I `d rather yesterday?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 26, 2008 22:34:42 GMT 1
In a sentence: I`d rather have stayed at home last night. which period does our preference refer to? Present or past? Does it mean: I`d rather now or I `d rather yesterday? This is a tricky one. The way I see it is this: "I'd rather have stayed at home last night" refers to how I am feeling now. The 'have' modifies the 'stayed' and the 'I'd rather' means right now. Changing the position of 'have' to: "I'd have rather stayed home last night" refers to how I felt last night. The have modifies the 'would' in I'd and makes the 'I'd have rather' mean past tense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 26, 2008 23:17:57 GMT 1
In a sentence: I`d rather have stayed at home last night. which period does our preference refer to? Present or past? Does it mean: I`d rather now or I `d rather yesterday? This is a tricky one. Yes, I know. The students asked me about it and I promised them I would ask my native friends in the forum. hahahaha OK.... How about this? Can it be treated in the same way? I`d rather you had come with me yesterday or she`d rather he had stayed at home last night. Holy cow, this is totally new grammar to me! I didn`t know such things are possible!!! hahahahaha It isn`t in any of my books!! hahaha I still must learn a lot!! Let`s look at another example from my textbook: I`d rather have eaten soup last night.Don`t you think that treating it as a present time reference makes little sense? Who regrets today that he/she didn`t eat soup yesterday? It sounds amusing hahahahaha Yes, it is tricky, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 27, 2008 0:23:34 GMT 1
OK.... How about this? Can it be treated in the same way? I`d rather you had come with me yesterday or she`d rather he had stayed at home last night. Yes, both these examples are about feelings happening in the present. The phrases, I'd rather, she'd rather, he'd rather, they'd rather are all present tense, so they all refer to something being felt now, no matter what phrase follows them. Yes, this example is also in the present tense. Of course they could NOW regret not eating the soup last night because their stomach is upset from what they did eat! If they said, "I'd HAVE rather eaten soup last night" it would mean they weren't happy while they were eating it last night! You realise, of course, that probably many people use these phrases incorrectly and no one notices and no one stops to think if they are correct. It's only a picky English major like myself who would notice. |
|
|
|
Post by falkenberg on Apr 3, 2008 20:43:47 GMT 1
Great! I can remember that, being 15, I wrote in the Englis test something like: I usually spend weekends on a b*tch. My female English teacher was a bit angry  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 4, 2008 21:34:23 GMT 1
Great! I can remember that, being 15, I wrote in the Englis test something like: I usually spend weekends on a b*tch. My female English teacher was a bit angry Did you do it on purpose? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 4, 2008 21:42:18 GMT 1
A few questions to native speakers: 1. Are tomatoes treated as fruit or vegetables? I found them in fruit section in The Great Food Book, originally published in Australia. 2. Where does the name rarebit come from? Probably not rabbit, but rare bit. Why? Was this toast with cheese so special to be called rare? 3. Where does the name strawberry come from? Were strawberries ever grown on straw?  hahaha 4. Do Americans ever use the name Bison, instead of bufallo? Is there any difference? 5. Can we say: a difficult film in the sense of being too complex to understand by an average person? 6. What do these mean exactly? One story is good till another is told. A tale never loses in the telling. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Apr 4, 2008 23:25:36 GMT 1
A few questions to native speakers: 1. Are tomatoes treated as fruit or vegetables? I found them in fruit section in The Great Food Book, originally published in Australia. This is a great debate even for English speakers. I have heard some solve the dilemma by saying the tomato is actually a berry! The term I hear is actually 'Welsh Rarebit', so perhaps an Islander would know better than an American like myself. Not sure about this one...could it be straw was put down to protect the berries which would otherwise get spoiled on the wet ground? Americans usually say buffalo (please note spelling), but we know that bison means the same thing and could be used interchangably. But, we just don't use it because the 'buffalo' is such an ingrained part of our culture. I think the phrase would have to be qualified by a little more information to make sense. A 'difficult film' might also be interpreted as meaning a film which is difficult to sit through either because it is a bad film (boring, poorly made, etc) or because it revealed difficult truths (say...like Nazis beating Jews, etc.) To be clearly understood, one would probably say, "That is a difficult film to understand..." I think this means that one story will only hold people's attention until something else comes along to top it, such as a news story which is all over the papers one day and forgotten the next when some other scandal comes along. Reminds me of when Pope John Paul II visited Cuba. All the reporters were there to cover the huge story of the pope meeting with Castro. The next day the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton story broke and the reporters all headed to Washington. We heard no more of what happened on the Pope's visit! I think this means that stories only grow as they are repeatedly told. Each person adds a few details or drama and as the story is passed along and retold it only becomes more enhanced; it never diminishes in the telling. Do you know what a fish story is? Everytime the fisherman holds up his hands to show how big the fish is that he caught, with each telling the fish gets bigger and bigger. It's kind of like that. |
|
|
|
Post by falkenberg on Apr 12, 2008 13:00:35 GMT 1
Great! I can remember that, being 15, I wrote in the Englis test something like: I usually spend weekends on a b*tch. My female English teacher was a bit angry Did you do it on purpose? Of course no! I've always been a kind of polite pupil  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on May 13, 2008 21:17:12 GMT 1
Hey, what do you think? I am really curious.... polandsite.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=polishliteratureinenglish&action=display&thread=134&page=2#1030Next load of questions: Where do scrambled eggs come from? For a long time I thought that scrambling means breaking. But it is sth like climbing. Where is the connection??? Is the name glue stick interpreted by native speakers as a funny play with words of similar meaning, or it sounds just neutral? In one textbook I have found this: What am I suppose to wear? Is it a correct expression? In Reported Speech grammar there are special verbs. You say She denied having cheatedbut the version She denied cheating is also used in reference to past events. Who would rather use which version? Educated people vs uneducated? Young vs old? etc etc How do native speakers understand: I like my coach. In one textbook I found: She goes to school every day by bus. It is in conflict with the MPT rule which I learnt at uni: MPT - Manner Place Time. Is it a mistake or just colloquial speech? In kids textbook there are 3 animals: squirrel called Swish, magpie called Tricky, hedgehog called Rolly. Tricky is obvious, it likes playing tricks. Rolly is less obvious, does the name come from rolling, as hedgehogs sometimes move like it? I have a problem with Swish. It resembles the sound of fast movement, a blow of air after something has flown quickly past us. Squirrels are fast, yes. But I read somewhere that Swish suggests a gay person. What can you say about it? I have found: Animals on a national reserve. Is it correct? Can you have a packet of beef? If not, how do you call a pre-packed piece of beef? In one textbook: A boy was burnt in a fireworks accident yesterday. His legs were severely burned. Wjhy such inconsistency? |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 13, 2008 23:41:23 GMT 1
There is no connection...'scramble' simply has two meanings; one is like you said, kind of running quickly/climbing quickly. The other meaning is to mix something up...like eggs; once you have broken them and put them in a bowl or pan, you beat them before cooking. You could 'scramble' the letters of a word to make a puzzle, or scramble radio signals to confuse the enemy. Actually, I never thought of it as a play on words, but you are absolutely right, it is! We just mostly think of the 'stick' part as distinguishing it from liquid glue. The correct way should have been 'supposed' to wear. So many people are lazy about adding the 'ed' when speaking that many people actually think that 'suppose' is correct. It's not. (but then, you know I am picky...) This is a difficult question. I tend to think that with 'she denied having cheated' the denying and the cheating occurred at different times. The 'she denied cheating' seems to imply that the denying and the cheating happened in the same time frame. That's the difference I see between them. The first one makes me think that the cheating was already completed when she denied it, and the second one (because of the 'ing' ending) implies that the cheating was currently happening, whether that was now or in a past time. I like the person who teaches me to do something (a sport, acting, etc.). Unless I am Cinderella and then I like my vehicle made of a pumpkin. ;D I think it's just colloquial speech. The MPT rule makes speech way too formal for most American speakers; I don't know about the British though; it definitely sounds like a more British way of speaking. 'Swish' refers to the movement of the squirrel's tail. It's also movement, not just a sound. For instance, long skirts swish as a lady dances. I never heard of Swish suggesting a gay person, but then I'm fairly naive about that kind of stuff, so it could be. Yes, it is correct. A national reserve is land area. One lives 'on' land, not 'in land', if that is what you thought it should be... A pre-packed piece of beef is a 'package' of beef. In the US, 'packet' often refers to something packed in paper (such as a dried soup mix packed in an paper-type envelope). In school, a number of pages stapled together for children to work on is called a 'packet'. You might get a 'packet' of papers from your insurance company, etc. It's just a variation of the word. There are some other examples of this variation in English. Both are correct. |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on May 14, 2008 0:33:09 GMT 1
The first one makes me think that the cheating was already completed when she denied it, and the second one (because of the 'ing' ending) implies that the cheating was currently happening, whether that was now or in a past time. it's actually the opposite although the second could be in the past or now too. the other is past perfect tense. hard to get for non native speakers as well as natives. it's used sporadically, in general. most people don't get the "have" part at all. yes but reserve implies an enclosure of sorts thus IN will work just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on May 14, 2008 0:44:40 GMT 1
are you sure about burnt and burned? aha, here is the difference. burnt is past and past perfect tenses while the other kind of works a little bit differently. there is definitely a correct way of using it and not. dictionary.reference.com/browse/burntdictionary.reference.com/browse/burnedto me, if something is burnt it implies totality and finality of the action. the other does not necessarily. hmm.. that just doesn't sound right. hmm.. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 14, 2008 0:49:47 GMT 1
The first one makes me think that the cheating was already completed when she denied it, and the second one (because of the 'ing' ending) implies that the cheating was currently happening, whether that was now or in a past time. it's actually the opposite although the second could be in the past or now too. the other is past perfect tense. hard to get for non native speakers as well as natives. it's used sporadically, in general. most people don't get the "have" part at all. ...And people say Polish is a hard language to learn! ;D yes but reserve implies an enclosure of sorts thus IN will work just as well.[/quote] Yes, that is true! Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on May 14, 2008 0:55:04 GMT 1
yeah some nuances in english are hard to crack because many times they are either used incorrectly or mispronounced. suppose/d was a good example. there are many and when i see or hear those mistakes, it drives me crazy. polish is way harder. i have no idea of how some people do it. i find that amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 14, 2008 0:58:37 GMT 1
hmm.. that just doesn't sound right. hmm.. But with the MPT rule, wouldn't it be: She goes by bus to school every day.? Doesn't that sound kind of contrived for common usage? I'd probably say, She goes to school by bus every day. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 14, 2008 1:04:40 GMT 1
yeah some nuances in english are hard to crack because many times they are either used incorrectly or mispronounced. suppose/d was a good example. there are many and when i see or hear those mistakes, it drives me crazy. polish is way harder. i have no idea of how some people do it. i find that amazing. loco, Didn't you say your first language was Polish? You seem to have a pretty good understanding of English...did that come with your general education, or were you an English major in college? I'm just saying that because a lot of native speakers don't have a good understanding of the language...so I wondered where you got yours. |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on May 14, 2008 1:05:13 GMT 1
contrived? hmm.. not to me. when not in a homie situation i tend to speak proper english.
|
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on May 14, 2008 1:13:49 GMT 1
yeah some nuances in english are hard to crack because many times they are either used incorrectly or mispronounced. suppose/d was a good example. there are many and when i see or hear those mistakes, it drives me crazy. polish is way harder. i have no idea of how some people do it. i find that amazing. loco, Didn't you say your first language was Polish? You seem to have a pretty good understanding of English...did that come with your general education, or were you an English major in college? I'm just saying that because a lot of native speakers don't have a good understanding of the language...so I wondered where you got yours. yes but at this point i've spoken and studied english longer/more then polish. my polish vocabulary is dwindling and otherwise falling behind times. i never translate though. i always switch completely. translating takes quite an effort sometimes. lol i learned english by total immersion and i also read a lot looking up every single word i didn't understand. that was a lot, and i mean a lot of words looked up. i continue doing that as i constantly find myself not knowing some words. i think after you look up a word 2 or 3 times, you'll always know what it means. i think reading gets one in the best condition as it makes one start imagining and thinking in the language they are reading more gently then speaking with someone as reading is without pressure. i also have no polish accent. i tend to strive for perfection. lol. people only figure out that i am not from here when i tell them my name. and oh, not an english major.. i am not that good. lol but i did have to write my fair share of papers and technical papers and documents. i do a bit of writing now too.. i'm learning how important words are though. i need to buy blacks dictionary.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 14, 2008 2:02:26 GMT 1
i think reading gets one in the best condition as it makes one start imagining and thinking in the language they are reading more gently then speaking with someone as reading is without pressure. I agree. When I first went to college, I actually went with the idea of being a French major. I could read French well, and actually started being able to think in French, but I just could not get my speaking fluent...it was frustrating, so I abandoned the idea of being a French major. And I agree that words are extremely important. In fact I prefer writing to speaking. It seems that often when speaking, things can come out differently from what the brain is thinking (my brain, anyway). I prefer writing because I can get back what I said if I'm not happy with it, and say it a different way, or work at it until I'm satisfied that it says what I really want it to! |
|
gigi
Kindergarten kid
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by gigi on May 14, 2008 3:24:22 GMT 1
I agree. When I first went to college, I actually went with the idea of being a French major. I could read French well, and actually started being able to think in French, but I just could not get my speaking fluent...it was frustrating, so I abandoned the idea of being a French major. I was a double major - Spanish and Business. I was good at reading and translating, aced all of my written tests, but the oral exams tripped me up. I thought perhaps it was the language itself, so I began to study French as well. Maybe I should have chosen a non-Romance language. It was the same outcome. Then I began to think and speak in a combination of the two (would that be Frenish)? Did you ever go to France to study? I wanted to go to Spain, but I didn't have the money to do so. I think that might have helped. The sink or swim theory, right?  |
|
hahaha
