uncltim
Just born
I oppose most nonsense.
Posts: 73
|
Post by uncltim on Mar 14, 2012 13:51:03 GMT 1
"When you have a plant you must keep it watered" would be my usage.
or,
"When you have a plant you must water it"
You've already identified the noun so there is no need to repeat it in the same sentence. "plant" and "soil" are two different things (nouns). You want the plant to recieve water. He is actually thinking very logically because you would apply the water to the soil. It's really a matter of difference in language structure. the fault lies in the English language, not your students head.
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Mar 14, 2012 15:09:03 GMT 1
the fault lies in the English language, not your students head. My impression too. Literally speaking, the plant waters itself, one can't water,'fill with water' the plant. All one can do is water the soil. Kudos to Bo jr. for his logic! |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Mar 14, 2012 15:18:59 GMT 1
Of course there are similar illogical words in Polish too. Eg. 'to diet' in Polish is 'odchudzaæ siê'. Which literally means to 'de-slim oneself'. While,,logically, if someone de-slims himself, he is not slim anymore. To be logical one should say he 'de-fats' himself, in Polish 'odgrubiaæ siê'. If somone would use such a non-existing word ,he would be surely understood, but would sound awkward, just as Jeanne said, or humourisric.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 15, 2012 1:13:43 GMT 1
Thank you guys on behalf of my son. You tried to save his ass, but I am a strict father and teacher and I told him he still has to study hard to acquire proper proficiency in written English. ;D ;D ;D
But he was given his 7 zlotys reward for getting into the third stage of English Competition anyway. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
One day I expect him to excell his father. ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
uncltim
Just born
I oppose most nonsense.
Posts: 73
|
Post by uncltim on Mar 15, 2012 2:21:25 GMT 1
I must admit, the thought of Bonobo having sired an engineering-minded child is somewhat amusing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 15, 2012 22:53:02 GMT 1
I must admit, the thought of Bonobo having sired an engineering-minded child is somewhat amusing to me. It isn`t accidental. I am engineering -minded myself. When I made a hand grenade in high school, my parents` jaws dropped down almost to the floor. Just give me a plank and a few nails and I will make a rocket out of it. A Pole can! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D PS. Today I scored a major slip-up. A student wrote: Electricity went off and I considered it wrong and corrected into The lights went out. However, she brought a book and proved her version was OK. What embarassment! I don`t remember when it last happened to me. Must be many years ago....  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 21, 2012 10:32:05 GMT 1
I am running into strange uses of English in our original British textbooks more and more often. I wonder if they are common mistakes or mistakes which are gradually becoming new language rules?
Look:
Do you like History also?
It doesn`t interest me, too.
A human brainb weighs about 1.5 kilograms.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jun 21, 2012 17:07:20 GMT 1
I am running into strange uses of English in our original British textbooks more and more often. I wonder if they are common mistakes or mistakes which are gradually becoming new language rules? Look: Do you like History also? Putting the "also" in this position means that the person asking the question likes History and wonders if the other person does too. If the speaker had asked, "Do you also like History?" that would mean the other person likes some other subjects besides History... does that make sense to you? Again, the "too" means the speaker along with the person being spoken to is not interested in "it." "It, too, doesn't interest me," would mean there are other things that don't interest the speaker. Yes, that is correct (the "s" on kiograms) because 1.5 is more than one kilogram...at least that's MY take on these language issues! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 21, 2012 19:15:36 GMT 1
Putting the "also" in this position means that the person asking the question likes History and wonders if the other person does too. If the speaker had asked, "Do you also like History?" that would mean the other person likes some other subjects besides History... does that make sense to you? Yes! Again, the "too" means the speaker along with the person being spoken to is not interested in "it."
"It, too, doesn't interest me," would mean there are other things that don't interest the speaker.
But I thought you should say either in negations!
Yes, that is correct (the "s" on kiograms) because 1.5 is more than one kilogram...Funny. It would never come to my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jun 21, 2012 21:42:05 GMT 1
But I thought you should say either in negations! I believe there are several correct ways one can say it. But, in negations shouldn't it be "neither" , and not "either"? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 21, 2012 21:48:04 GMT 1
I believe there are several correct ways one can say it. But, in negations shouldn't it be "neither" , and not "either"? That must be the British style, then, to say either in negations instead of too. www.grammar-quizzes.com/too-either.html |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jun 21, 2012 22:34:46 GMT 1
I believe there are several correct ways one can say it. But, in negations shouldn't it be "neither" , and not "either"? That must be the British style, then, to say either in negations instead of too. www.grammar-quizzes.com/too-either.htmlI agree. The British are more likely to say "either" than "too." Or, in other words, Bonobo, I think so too....or I, too, think so. ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 25, 2012 19:43:16 GMT 1
What is the message of this cartoon? I thought I understood it some time ago but my students have offered me so many interpretations that today I am lost.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jun 26, 2012 12:55:56 GMT 1
What is the message of this cartoon? I thought I understood it some time ago but my students have offered me so many interpretations that today I am lost. This cartoon is fraught with irony, so it's hard to tell exactly what its creator had in mind. The scene itself is reminiscent of the 1950's American culture of the perfect "homemaker", happy with her life of devotion to her family. The world of advertising/marketing played into this world which was legitimately based on the wholesome value of sacrificial love of one's family, by convincing women that they needed many products to make them even more "perfect" than they already were. The irony, of course, comes from the woman's reference to perhaps returning to brain surgery. In the world of the 1950's this would have been a rarity, indeed, but in our present world it becomes more and more frequent an occurrence, that a woman might leave a financially rewarding and personally fulfilling career to stay home and raise her children. I personally choose to interpret it in this manner: The cartoon is saying to its readers that one should not judge a woman negatively by her choice to stay at home and perform the very valuable task of raising her children and being available to them, for perhaps that very woman, slaving over the kitchen chores, also is a very intelligent, talented, and valuable member of the human community, who is actually sacrificing what may be an easier and more ego-sustaining career to devote herself full-time to the most important career in the world, that of raising her children into happy, healthy and responsible members of society. ...and I realize this is my VERY subjective opinion...thanks for asking, though! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 27, 2012 9:20:12 GMT 1
I personally choose to interpret it in this manner: The cartoon is saying to its readers that one should not judge a woman negatively by her choice to stay at home and perform the very valuable task of raising her children and being available to them, for perhaps that very woman, slaving over the kitchen chores, also is a very intelligent, talented, and valuable member of the human community, who is actually sacrificing what may be an easier and more ego-sustaining career to devote herself full-time to the most important career in the world, that of raising her children into happy, healthy and responsible members of society. ...and I realize this is my VERY subjective opinion...thanks for asking, though! ;D Oh, I see! I would say it is a very, very decent interpretation. ;D ;D ;D ;D My students` were completely crazy but I was unable to turn them down as they did sound quite plausible. E.g., the girl is mentally handicapped (the way she is drawn may cause such an impression) but her mother promises her that one day she will go back to brain surgery to operate on the girl, so she needn`t worry at all. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jun 27, 2012 9:56:59 GMT 1
My students` were completely crazy but I was unable to turn them down as they did sound quite plausible. E.g., the girl is mentally handicapped (the way she is drawn may cause such an impression) but her mother promises her that one day she will go back to brain surgery to operate on the girl, so she needn`t worry at all. Now, there's a creative interpretation...your students are definitely clever! ;D (Of course, they are 'way too young to be aware of all that US 1950's culture stuff that I wrote about!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Nov 8, 2015 1:45:35 GMT 1
Jeanne, when you read "przedszkole" in Polish, what image do you get?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Nov 22, 2015 23:07:17 GMT 1
Jeanne, when you read "przedszkole" in Polish, what image do you get? How can I get an image when I can't read the word, nor do I know what it means?? I guess my image is: "difficult Polish word." |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 29, 2016 19:32:42 GMT 1
1 So far, the grammar I know has explained that the phrase "of one`s" suggests many. E.g., A friend of mine means I have many friends.
Hence my surprise after seeing doctor`s "Let me have a look at that throat of yours. " Does that creation suggest politeness or slight irony?
2 Jeanne, do you see a mistake here?:
If they get ever married, I will eat my heart.
3 A quote from a business English textbook - a formal letter reads: "I have arranged accomodations for you..... " That`s a big surprise because even the dictionary in the book says that accommodation is uncountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Oct 29, 2016 20:30:04 GMT 1
1 So far, the grammar I know has explained that the phrase "of one`s" suggests many. E.g., A friend of mine means I have many friends. I'm not sure why "of one's" would be regarded as meaning many..."A friend of mine" just means someone who is my friend; it does not refer to any other friends the person may or may not have. This is just a way of showing ownership that is acceptable and correct...it is neither particularly polite, nor slightly ironic: Examples: that book of mine, those dogs of his, those toes of hers, that attitude of theirs Proper way is: If they ever get married, I will eat my heart. Hmmm...I'm not sure why the dictionary would say accommodation is uncountable. It is used correctly in the phrase "I have arranged accomodations for you..." when "accommodations" are a place to stay. We also say that a child who has learning disabilities needs accommodations in the classroom (preferential seating, help with directions, etc.), and also people with physical disabilities need accommodations (a lift to get on the bus, doors wide enough for wheelchairs, etc.) Perhaps the dictionary is referring to "accommodation" as the act of "accommodating" (verb) and therefore would be uncountable. For example: "Accommodation is the best method of preventing arguments." But of course, accommodation the noun is countable. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 29, 2016 20:43:13 GMT 1
Thanks for detailed reply. 1 I learnt of mine when I studied at uni many years ago, it is still explained in this way, check these answers from a forum: "a friend of mine" implies that 1) i don't want to specify closer which one I mean, 2) this is the further friend not worthy of being mentioned --> MG, 3) I've got a large number of friends and I mean one of them --> SAV. depending on the context... "friend of mine" doesn't have to depreciate the aforementioned person, but predominantingly it does. my friend - we are talking ab one particular person and we've probably mentioned that friend before. In the case of 'a friend of mine' = one of my friends so we are referring to a larger group of people = here my friends a friend of mine = one of my friends (I don't specify which one I mean). 2 With this ever in the sentence, yes, I should have put it earlier. But I didn`t mean that mistake. I meant heart. That`s what I heard in the recording, while the proper phrase was eat my hat. 3 so, I have just learnt about accommodationS.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Oct 29, 2016 22:12:57 GMT 1
Thanks for detailed reply. 1 I learnt of mine when I studied at uni many years ago, it is still explained in this way, check these answers from a forum: "a friend of mine" implies that 1) i don't want to specify closer which one I mean, 2) this is the further friend not worthy of being mentioned --> MG, 3) I've got a large number of friends and I mean one of them --> SAV. depending on the context... "friend of mine" doesn't have to depreciate the aforementioned person, but predominantingly it does. my friend - we are talking ab one particular person and we've probably mentioned that friend before. In the case of 'a friend of mine' = one of my friends so we are referring to a larger group of people = here my friends a friend of mine = one of my friends (I don't specify which one I mean). The common thread in these forum answers is that the speaker does not wish to identify, for whatever reason, which specific friend he/she is referring to. Regarding its referring to a larger group of friends, the forum writer is just saying that the speaker is talking about just one friend, not necessarily that there are many more friends...as I mentioned. Oh, that makes sense...I didn't pick up that mistake because we have a saying when something like losing a beloved one to another happens: "eat your heart out"...means sort of uselessly agonizing emotionally. Usually, though, a person wouldn't say I'll eat my heart out, but rather someone else will say to them, "Eat your heart out..." kind of in a cruel way. Perhaps the victorious lover would say this to the former lover when marrying his ex. Really, Bonobo, who says "learnt" anymore?? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 29, 2016 22:18:51 GMT 1
Really, Bonobo, who says "learnt" anymore?? Learnt is the best form, because learned means knowledgeable.
Noun 1. learned person - someone who has been admitted to membership in a scholarly field |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Oct 29, 2016 22:29:14 GMT 1
Really, Bonobo, who says "learnt" anymore?? Learnt is the best form, because learned means knowledgeable.
Noun 1. learned person - someone who has been admitted to membership in a scholarly field"Learned", as in a "learned person" is pronounced differently than something you have "learned". First one is pronounced learn-ed (ed at the end is said Ed, like the name, short for Edward). The second one is pronounced learnd. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 29, 2016 22:38:11 GMT 1
Learnt is the best form, because learned means knowledgeable.
Noun 1. learned person - someone who has been admitted to membership in a scholarly field"Learned", as in a "learned person" is pronounced differently than something you have "learned". First one is pronounced learn-ed (ed at the end is said Ed, like the name, short for Edward). The second one is pronounced learnd. I hoped you didn`t know about it. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Oct 29, 2016 22:56:32 GMT 1
"Learned", as in a "learned person" is pronounced differently than something you have "learned". First one is pronounced learn-ed (ed at the end is said Ed, like the name, short for Edward). The second one is pronounced learnd. I hoped you didn`t know about it. Who's the native speaker here? You or me?  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 29, 2016 23:01:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Oct 29, 2016 23:04:35 GMT 1
OK, ok, peace, pax, mir, pokój. [/quote] And peace be with you! |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 3, 2018 23:42:51 GMT 1
Is it OK to say? : I can run fast very well.
I just run into an exercise in a textbook which encourages pupils to say/write such sentences.
I thought that fast is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 4, 2018 2:58:00 GMT 1
Is it OK to say? : I can run fast very well. I just run into an exercise in a textbook which encourages pupils to say/write such sentences. I thought that fast is enough. I think it is acceptable to say "run fast very well." "Fast" describes the speed of the running, but "very well" may/could refer to the fact that the speaker does not trip over his own feet while running fast, or that he/she does not get breathless when running fast which might prevent them from completing the course, etc. If the sentence is solely about speed, then "fast" would be enough. It depends on what meaning the writer wants to convey... |
|
