I have some questions

[LifeDeath]

Thank you both for answering!

I just thought that the "I think" part was used to express an opinion, in the same way as we use "I guess", "I suppose", etc. That's why I expected something after "therefore I am".


Today I had an English class where I had an argument with a teacher, so I wanted to ask you about it. I had written an annotation for a research article (as prescribed by my study plan) and she checked it today and said a couple of things were wrong and tried to explain to me why. So, I've wanted to debunk her ideas because I intuitively feel that I'm correct, yet I can't express it in terms of grammar, nor do I have authority of being a native English speaker.


The first sentence I'd like to ask about is "This type of behavior is not appropriate for neural network simulation where millions and sometimes billions of iterations need to be applied to a structure."
The teacher marked the word "need" in red. She said that in this context only a passive form of "need" could be used, i.e.: "Billions of iterations are needed to be applied to a structure", or that I should have used a different verb instead of "need". She said that "are" is the best option in the given context and some other verbs are possible, too, like "should" and "must". Since I was writing the annotation myself, I used "need" and not any other verb for a reason. I just want you to tell me if it's correct as is. I suspect this has something to do with the middle voice, but I'm not sure.


The second sentence was "Cycle after cycle, this force slowly stretched the nanoparticles out until they smeared into a very thick uniform film of single vanadium pentoxide molecules without the potential energy centers which completely inhibited its ability to conduct, as ? was observed on a voltmeter screen" where she put a question mark before the word "was" in the second part. I'm not sure what she actually meant there, so I just want to know if such phrasing is fine (without anything put in before the "was"). I'm struggling to recall which grammar topics I should read on it, but I feel this is correct anyway, though I'm not totally sure now that it's been corrected. (I even think that in a lower register the "was" could be dropped off completely and we'd still be left with a legitimate sentence, with a little exception that the fact that the observation took place namely in the past would now be a bit unclear).

[linguoboy]

I just thought that the "I think" part was used to express an opinion, in the same way as we use "I guess", "I suppose", etc. That's why I expected something after "therefore I am".

Naw, in this case it's used exceptionally in its core meaning of "to have thoughts, to cogitate".

The first sentence I'd like to ask about is "This type of behavior is not appropriate for neural network simulation where millions and sometimes billions of iterations need to be applied to a structure."
The teacher marked the word "need" in red. She said that in this context only a passive form of "need" could be used, i.e.: "Billions of iterations are needed to be applied to a structure", or that I should have used a different verb instead of "need". She said that "are" is the best option in the given context and some other verbs are possible, too, like "should" and "must". Since I was writing the annotation myself, I used "need" and not any other verb for a reason. I just want you to tell me if it's correct as is. I suspect this has something to do with the middle voice, but I'm not sure.

Your version sounds better than any of her suggested substitutions. Insisting on a passivisation is especially odd because "be applied" is already passive and this leads to a double passive construction that is supremely awkward.

It shouldn't be too hard for you to find a citation from a journal where a native speaker uses a "need(s) to be" construction parallel to yours.

The second sentence was "Cycle after cycle, this force slowly stretched the nanoparticles out until they smeared into a very thick uniform film of single vanadium pentoxide molecules without the potential energy centers which completely inhibited its ability to conduct, as ? was observed on a voltmeter screen" where she put a question mark before the word "was" in the second part.

Before we get to this, two minor observations:

1. "Smeared" is a rather informal verb for this context. I would simply say "formed".
2. "Single" sounds a bit off, since the film is formed of multiple molecules. "Individual" works better (because the point I assume you're making is that they're not bonded to other molecules, not that the film is only a single molecule thick).

I'm not sure what she actually meant there, so I just want to know if such phrasing is fine (without anything put in before the "was"). I'm struggling to recall which grammar topics I should read on it, but I feel this is correct anyway, though I'm not totally sure now that it's been corrected. (I even think that in a lower register the "was" could be dropped off completely and we'd still be left with a legitimate sentence, with a little exception that the fact that the observation took place namely in the past would now be a bit unclear).

Dropping the "was" doesn't affect the register. It changes a nuance, but it's hard to put into words exactly how. Maybe "was observed" puts a little more focus on the process than just "observed", which sounds like little more than an indication that a voltmeter was used.

I don't get what her issue is with this sentence either, since it's totally idiomatic to me. Maybe that there's no explicit subject? But this is one of the rare cases in English where you don't need one.

[LifeDeath]

Thank you. Indeed, those corrections you suggested are fine. I didn't know "smear" was rather informal, but I felt like "single" wasn't the best option.


There's the song "No Favors" by Big Sean ft. Eminem and there's this line in it:
"If she was flavor, I won't save her".
At first, it seemed just fine but then I remembered standard classification of conditional sentences and doubted a bit. I think most English learners would expect "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her" because this is what we're taught. If + past, then + would. But I thought that the actual use of tenses can be more flexible than those written into books of grammar and I should get the meaning just from looking at the sentence. What it seems to me is that he compares his expression of a woman to flavor, like figuratively. He didn't like the woman, so he wanted to have her (save) in his collection of other flavors if she was a flavor as well. But then, why not "wouldn't save her"? I thought this might be because he's deciding it as he's saying the sentence. Right at the moment's of speaking he's not willing to save her, that's why he says "won't". But then, since he's thinking about it and it has bearing on the present moment, why isn't it "If she has been flavor"?
I'm not sure if such logic can work in English at all, so I want to show another example. Let's say you're visiting some country and going out to try local beer that you've heard is good. Let's say you don't like it at all, so while you're still at the counter you can say to your friend "If that's been their best beer, I won't even taste their medium" (I think that just "that is their" in the first part would be best, but I'm trying to show logical reference to that sentence above). But if you didn't have this conversation at the bar, but, let's say some hours later in a hotel room, then, if your friend asks you what you think of the beer you tasted that day, you can say "If that was their best beer, I won't even taste their medium" using the past in the first part, and future in the second. But I don't see how this logic might correlate with the sentence I'm asking about. The songwriter, as it seems to me, just says what he thinks about that woman he's seen. So why isn't it "If she is flavor, I won't save her" or "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her"?

[LifeDeath]

I wanted to add another simple question.
Here I posted a recording of me reading a book. Many people said that I sounded like I was from the Southern US having that regional accent. Can you give it a brief listen and corroborate or dispute their impression? There were even people from the South of the US (as they claimed) who confirmed that I had a Southern accent, which is ABSOLUTELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me because I have no idea where I could pick that accent, I've watched American TV shows, like Friends, The Office, Lost. And seven years ago, when I was beginning, I listened to a couple of audiobooks read by Stephen Fry, but I wasn't even able to tell the American accent from the British at the time, which I learned only a couple of years ago. And anyway, now I can hear if that's an American accent other than a British one, but I still absolutely unable to distinguish regional US accents (unless they are overdone, as for comical reasons).

[linguoboy]

Here I posted a recording of me reading a book. Many people said that I sounded like I was from the Southern US having that regional accent. Can you give it a brief listen and corroborate or dispute their impression?

It's your /ai/. The way you say "Tyler"--with centralisation and smoothing--is very characteristic of Southern American English.

[linguoboy]

There's the song "No Favors" by Big Sean ft. Eminem and there's this line in it:
"If she was flavor, I won't save her".
At first, it seemed just fine but then I remembered standard classification of conditional sentences and doubted a bit. I think most English learners would expect "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her" because this is what we're taught. If + past, then + would. But I thought that the actual use of tenses can be more flexible than those written into books of grammar and I should get the meaning just from looking at the sentence. What it seems to me is that he compares his expression of a woman to flavor, like figuratively. He didn't like the woman, so he wanted to have her (save) in his collection of other flavors if she was a flavor as well. But then, why not "wouldn't save her"? I thought this might be because he's deciding it as he's saying the sentence. Right at the moment's of speaking he's not willing to save her, that's why he says "won't". But then, since he's thinking about it and it has bearing on the present moment, why isn't it "If she has been flavor"?

The use of the present perfect construction is pretty limited in colloquial American English. It doesn't work here at all.

There's either a pun here on "savour" (to enjoy a flavour) or that's the actual lyric and someone misheard it. "Wouldn't" can also sound like "won't" in rapid speech.

So why isn't it "If she is flavor, I won't save her" or "If she was flavor, I wouldn't save her"?

Just poetic licence, I guess. I really can't see a specific motivation for it.

[LifeDeath]

Thanks.
I've been puzzling over it a lot over the last week.
Here's the video where the first line is the one I was asking about. Even if it's playing with the alike-sounding "savor", I think it shouldn't affect the verb form, it doesn't even change the rhythm.

Just poetic licence, I guess.

That's is one thing that is hard for even advanced learners. You never know where the boundaries are, nor do you know if it's a real grammatical structure you happen to have skipped for some reason or just a fancy made up part of a lyric.

[LifeDeath]

I wanted to ask another question about my work's correction. Here's what was corrected by the teacher. The sentence is "Moreover, not only can molybdenum be used for such applications, some other metal dichalcogenides can, too, including selenium and tungsten."
I want to elucidate it for me if that's truly incorrect or not. I'm pretty sure the teacher marked that part in read because she didn't like the "not only" construction. I've read that this is rather formal phrasing, which makes it even more appropriate for formal contexts. So is this correct? (given what's written below)
But then I looked at the sentence once more and started to doubt a bit. Indeed, I've read that "not only" should always be accompanied by "but also", which is not true for my sentence. Logically, I feel that if "but also" part is prominently meant in a sentence, it can be omitted. In my case, "but" is just omitted there, and "also" is substituted by "too". But what it turns out now to me is that the second part is not logically connected to the first. That is, if I stared to talk about some properties of molybdenum in "not only" part, I should add something to it in the "but also" part. Like "Not only can molybdenum be used for such applications, but it can also be used for other applications." But instead, I started to talk about some other materials in the second part, leaving a logical gap between the two parts. I'm pretty sure the teacher didn't mean this, the reason she marked it, as I said, is the use of "not only" itself, and maybe hinting that "but also" must explicitly present in the second part. But let's say the second part is used correctly, would it still be a mistake? (Or maybe the whole sentence is correct as is, but not excellent sounding, I just want to categorize it as really incorrect grammatically or not).

[linguoboy]

I want you to elucidate it for me if that's truly incorrect or not. I'm pretty sure the teacher marked that part in read because she didn't like the "not only" construction. I've read that this is rather formal phrasing, which makes it even more appropriate for formal contexts. So is this correct? (given what's written below)

We're now leaving the realm of what's "correct" from a grammatical point of view and getting into questions of stylistics. I suppose this is a "formal" construction compared to "not just...also" (e.g. "I didn't just correct it, I also gave suggestions.") but it's not at all stilted.

But then I looked at the sentence once more and started to doubt a bit. Indeed, I've read that "not only" should always be accompanied by "but also", which is not true for my sentence.

Again, this is a stylistic rule. We were taught it in high school composition class. It's useful for making the structure clear in an essay, but not strictly necessary.

Logically, I feel that if "but also" part is prominently meantimplied in a sentence, it can be omitted. In my case, "but" is just omitted there, and "also" is substituted by "too". But what it turns out now it seems to me is that the second part is not logically connected to the first. That is, if I stared to talk about some properties of molybdenum in the "not only" part, I should add something to it in the "but also" part. Like "Not only can molybdenum be used for such applications, but it can also be used for other applications." But instead, I started to talk about some other materials in the second part, leaving a logical gap between the two parts. I'm pretty sure the teacher didn't mean this, the reason she marked it, as I said, is the use of "not only" itself, and maybe hinting that "but also" must explicitly present in the second part. But let's say the second part is used correctly, would it still be a mistake? (Or maybe the whole sentence is correct as is, but not excellent sounding, I just want to categorize it as really incorrect grammatically or not).

To reiterate: It's fine grammatically. This is all stylistics.

To me, the contrast works as long as the reader places the emphasis in the right place. That is, the desired reading is "not only can molybdenum be used for such applications", contrasting molybdenum with the other listed metals to follow. But if you read the sentence with neutral emphasis, then the reader is more likely to expect a contrast with other applications that molybdenum can be used for.

I don't think this is much of an issue, but if you do want to restructure the sentence in order to avoid it, there are ways to do that. Perhaps the simplest is just to move "can", i.e. "not only molybdenum can be used for such applications...". In my opinion, that's a little awkward and it sounds better as a cleft sentence, i.e. "Moreover, it is not only molybdenum that can be used...". This heightens the contrast, however, which may not be the effect you want.

[LifeDeath]

Perfectly correct, but it doesn't have the same meaning. I wonder if you're being misled by the perfective/imperfective distinction in Russian. English verbs don't have that distinction.

I've heard that "done" + past verb serves as the perfective aspect in English, though slang. Is it true?
For example "I done wrote this letter" means that not only did I engage myself with activity of writing a letter, but I've finished the letter, or at least did what I wanted (hence "perfective").
Or "I done did whatever I could" emphasizes the fact of me actually having done the things and completing the task rather than just talking about me doing whatever I could as a kind of activity regardless of the results achieved, or whether any results were achieved at all.
In this, it could be different in meaning from the perfect aspect, which is a common and well-known thing in English, thus being used when delineating whether an action was completed without needing to do any further work, or was just done as a fact, where it's unclear if goals were achieved or not.

[azhong]

Hello, LifeDeath, long time no see. I was just wondering why you didn't come to study English here for more than a year. How is everything going with you (in Russia, if I remember correctly?)?

I just come to say hello and welcome you back to UniLang study languages together. Happy new year!

Zhong from Taiwan

[LifeDeath]

Hello, LifeDeath, long time no see. I was just wondering why you didn't come to study English here for more than a year. How is everything going with you (in Russia, if I remember correctly?)?
I just come to say hello and welcome you back to UniLang study languages together. Happy new year!
Zhong from Taiwan

Thanks Azhong! Happy new year to you too! How are you doing?
I moved to live in Moscow so I've had some busy months, I've kept reading books in English and listening to podcasts but I have to admit my English got a bit worse, which is what it feels like at least. I hope to gather some momentum in learning and get better soon.

[azhong]

I am also fine in general; I live in a small town in Taiwan, and this winter I started my language learning and writing practice exercises here again under the help of some UnilLangers. In fact, not long ago when I recalled you, I came in this thread and read two or three pages, where I found you wrote a love poem and some essays. They are not bad, LifeDeath! Did you write the poem with a cup of Wiskey? XD Just joking. I heard Russian people drink a lot of Wiskey.

Welcome back again. The questions you ask and the answers you receive will also be helpful for me.

[linguoboy]

Perfectly correct, but it doesn't have the same meaning. I wonder if you're being misled by the perfective/imperfective distinction in Russian. English verbs don't have that distinction.

I've heard that "done" + past verb serves as the perfective aspect in English, though slang. Is it true?

I would say this isn't true.

The done + verb construction is a borrowing from African-American Vernacular English. As such, its use in Standard English can be considered "slang". But its meaning in AAVE isn't perfective. This is simply the most common means of expressing the recent past.

For example "I done wrote this letter" means that not only did I engage myself with activity of writing a letter, but I've finished the letter, or at least did what I wanted (hence "perfective").

Perhaps some speakers of English interpret it this way, but I would say that the majority don't interpret it as any more perfective in meaning than "I wrote this letter".

A common expression which I would say has a perfective meaning is "I'm all done/finished writing this letter". When the main verb is "do", it is typically left out, e.g. "I'm all done with the chores" rather than "I'm all done doing the chores".

[LifeDeath]

Thanks for the answer!

I am also fine in general; I live in a small town in Taiwan, and this winter I started my language learning and writing practice exercises here again under the help of some UnilLangers. In fact, not long ago when I recalled you, I came in this thread and read two or three pages, where I found you wrote a love poem and some essays. They are not bad, LifeDeath! Did you write the poem with a cup of Wiskey? XD Just joking. I heard Russian people drink a lot of Wiskey.

Hi! Sorry for the late answer.
Well, I've heard Russian people drink a lot of vodka, which many do, but everyone who I know personally prefers cognac (or sometimes whiskey), but whichever poems I wrote here I did it being sober
You're always welcome to this topic!