atalarikt wrote:Let me see if I can help you.
Thanks, but I have already sent it. I am going to rewrite it a bit for another summer school application, I'll show it to you then.
Moderator:JackFrost
atalarikt wrote:Let me see if I can help you.
atalarikt wrote:What are the differences ofbetween "seems like" and "seems as though"? I've always had anthe impression that the former means "a situation/thing that can be either exactly what is assumed or not", while the latter means "a situation/thing that is exactly what is assumed", but I'm not so sure now.
LifeDeath wrote:Hello! I've recently been so busy going to hospitals that I've hardly had time to ask my questions here. I wrote them all down to recall in future. Now that I'm getting better and starting to have more free time, I've decided to ask some simple questions first.
LifeDeath wrote:1. I know this one isn't likely to be used ever, but I am interested in the grammar here. If we used a cleft construction with "what", which sentence would be is correct?
"What I am is an engineer".
"What I am am an engineer".
I think it must be the first, but I have doubts.
LifeDeath wrote:2. I was watching a video where an English guy was explaining some mistakes that Russian speakers make. At 2:25 he says that the word "should" implies a choice. It's like you say that someone "should" do something, but it's not necessary. Then he provides an example: "You should pay before leaving the cafe". He says that "should" here is incorrect because it implies that it's possible to leave without paying. And the proper verb in this context is "got to" or "must". But I have a question, is that really incorrect? For some reason it never occurred to me that it could be. Probably I never thought of such situation. I think that "should" in this context means something like "you'd better" or it's just a reminder. So saying this sentence you just try to express something like "Don't forget to pay before we leave!". At least I can't see anything criminal here.
LifeDeath wrote:The next example is "You should first cross the street and then go two blocks further down". In this case I partly agree, "should" does sound like you're just telling to a guy what he can do but which is not necessary. But again, probably it's probably just a matter of dialect or style? I think native speakers will understand that a guy's merely instructingexplaining how to get to a destination, won't they?
LifeDeath wrote:3. In an English topic on a Russian forum I witnessed a discussion on how to use "be" as a modal verb. A girl said that it is always used either in the past or the present tense, even if we when talking about the future. But as a person who's been learning English for the last couple of years mostly by experiencingthrough experience, I suppose that it's the usage people are simply used to rather than a rule. But I'm not sure that's why I'm asking you. Is it possible, at least in theory, to use "be to" in a future tense?
I came up with a couple of examples:
"Next month you will need to show me your plan and after that you will be to tell me how your research's going every week".
"Once you enter the hall you will be to ascend on a stage and start speaking".
"As we burglar into the house you'll be to turn off the alarm immediately".
LifeDeath wrote:4. You know, it is very hard to know what preposition to use when you connect an adjective with a gerund. And I assume it's only learned by practice. As far as I've noticed, "at" is used more often than any others, that's why I automatically put it in when speaking. I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it? I said something like "You're so adamant at trying not to see the obvious". Is "at" correct here or what would you use? I know that a simple way is not to use any preposition at all, but this approach doesn't work with all adjectives and sometimes the meaning even changes. So if you had to use a preposition, which would you choose?
Some more examples:
"He's always adamant at proving that what he's saying is right".
"You see, it wouldn't have been a row if she weren't so adamant at accusing me of what I never done".
linguoboy wrote:This are all completely ungrammatical.
Sometimes dictionary entries will tell you the preposition associated with an adjective in particular constructions. Unfortunately, none of the ones I looked at for adamant do this.
Naava wrote:linguoboy wrote:This are all completely ungrammatical.
Did you do this on purpose...?
Naava wrote:Sometimes dictionary entries will tell you the preposition associated with an adjective in particular constructions. Unfortunately, none of the ones I looked at for adamant do this.
Merriab-Webster and Vocabulary.com do.
linguoboy wrote:"Should" always implies that the action is optional.
I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it?
I think there should be a better word than "consult"
I guess it should be something like "reserved" or "taken". Don't you think so?
But is seems that the last word should be the adjective "strange", right?
I can't really explain this it just seems like it should be like that
But this time I noticed that it should mean something completely different
linguoboy wrote:Some trains have conductors who will sell you a ticket after you've boarded the train. But if they think you're trying to ride without a ticket, they will fine you.
linguoboy wrote:In your humble opinion, Naava, which is the most helpful dictionary of English for a learner?
LifeDeath wrote:I also wanted to ask a couple of more simple questions today.
1. Should the reflexive form of singular "they" should end at in "self" or only "selves"? Like "Whoever will try to do this will need to show themself".
LifeDeath wrote:2. How What can I call (or "How can I refer to") a person who I'm communicating with? Google translates it as "interlocutor" and I've even used this word a couple of times. But now it seems too awkward to me to use it in a casual conversation. It's like a specialized word from some technical literature.
I might suppose that "listener" would work, but would it? Can I use it even if though I communicate through gestures? Or by letters? Or is there another word?
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:"Should" always implies that the action is optional.
The way I thought the world to be turnshas been turned upside down now. I didn't really know it implied another option. It must mean that whenever I've used this wordI used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it?I think there should be a better word than "consult"I guess it should be something like "reserved" or "taken". Don't you think so?But is seems that the last word should be the adjective "strange", right?I can't really explain this it just seems like it should be like thatBut this time I noticed that it should mean something completely different
etc etc I didn't mean what it's intended to mean. Since there's not such thing as optionality in the grammar, there's a correct way to say something or incorrect (except some instances, like vocabulary choosementchoice). But still I feel that using "should" isn't incorrect in those examples, probably because I've learned this through experience looking at how native speakers use it.
is an inaccurate statement. "Correct" is a term from prescriptive grammar. (And I know I've gone through the distinction between "prescriptivism" and "descriptivsim" with you before.) But my approach is descriptive and if there's one thing I want you to take away from these exchanges it's that there are a range of acceptable usages in English.There's no such thing as optionality in the grammar, there's a correct way to say something or incorrect
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:Some trains have conductors who will sell you a ticket after you've boarded the train. But if they think you're trying to ride without a ticket, they will fine you.
I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too, but it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.
Dormouse559 wrote:Note that your example sentence is awkwardly phrased. Did you mean "Whoever wants to try doing this …"?
linguoboy wrote:There are usages which are acceptable in one dialect (or one register of a dialect) but not in others. Prescriptivists would call these usages "incorrect" but they're not in the same category as, for instance, using Russian prepositions in place of English ones
linguoboy wrote:When I answer your questions, I make a real effort to distinguish between these different categories. It may not seem that way when I revise your texts because I either correct something or I don't, but I try to correct only the most egregious errors
That's why it's important of you to ask questions when you don't understand why I've corrected something (or not corrected it), because there could be more than one reason for this.
linguoboy wrote:LifeDeath wrote:I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too
linguoboy wrote:LifeDeath wrote:it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.
Salajane wrote:What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?
LifeDeath wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Note that your example sentence is awkwardly phrased. Did you mean "Whoever wants to try doing this …"?
Well I just wanted to use both parts in the future tense. I didn't really think about its meaning.
LifeDeath wrote:But why is a gerund preferable here? I know that after "try" we can use both a gerund or an infinitive. I'd even venture to say that with most verbs I can 'sense' the difference though it's usually pretty hard to formulate and explain. But with the verb "do", is there really a big difference? Like:
"Whoever tries to do it will be punished".
"Whoever tries doing it will be punished".
LifeDeath wrote:[*] Can I use "guys" to refer to a group of people regardless of their genders? Or only when I talk about men?
Dormouse559 wrote:Salajane wrote:What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?
Do you have more context?
Salajane wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Salajane wrote:What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?
Do you have more context?
I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.
dEhiN wrote:Salajane wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Salajane wrote:What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?
Do you have more context?
I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.
It's taken from a book. It's a line that's part of a descriptive paragraph full of metaphors. You can see the line and the paragraph here. Even after reading the whole paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what exactly a "breathing building" refers to, and how that might be different from a "regular building", but it's meant to be a metaphor.
Dormouse559 wrote:dEhiN wrote:I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.
It's taken from a book. It's a line that's part of a descriptive paragraph full of metaphors. You can see the line and the paragraph here. Even after reading the whole paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what exactly a "breathing building" refers to, and how that might be different from a "regular building", but it's meant to be a metaphor.
dEhiN wrote:Oh, that would make a lot of sense! I tried to analyse it as a single noun or object: a breathing building. But seeing it as a building that's breathing makes sense.
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:There are usages which are acceptable in one dialect (or one register of a dialect) but not in others. Prescriptivists would call these usages "incorrect" but they're not in the same category as, for instance, using Russian prepositions in place of English ones
I always thought of it as if there are usages that are optional or belong to a particular style (just as you said) which are accepted by native speakers from any part of the US. So they understand them though this may be not how they use itthem themselves, these are still a 'native' usages for them. And there are things that are completely unidiomatic and jarring, such as omitting the articles, using the wrong prepositions, etc. For example, when an educated English speaker hears this "Yo man! She don't remember nothing I told ya!" he accepts this as an idiomatic usage though very regional, but if he heard "I found this in internet" he'd be really irritated by the incorrect use and non-native sound of it.
LifeDeath wrote:So I think the main difference here is about being idiomatic, no matter how far from a standard usage and not being idiomatic, no matter how well fit into standards of English.
LifeDeath wrote:Here's the example I recently saw in an English topic. I think the sentence "Not just once a week say something like "Hello, how are you and etc." is correct in terms of the grammar but it is so terribly awkward for an English ear.
LifeDeath wrote:I realize that I sound unnatural most of the time but that's what I'm learning to get rid of and I know it takes time. I suppose this is due to my poor vocabulary, and this becomes a real problem when it seems that you've facedhit a wall and there's no sources to learn new words and expressions from.
LifeDeath wrote:Sometimes to learn or try something new, I use something in a way I've never used it before, but which is highly familiar for me for some reason. So if it goes uncorrected, then I pick it up and continue to use it. Of course I do this with things that I'm about 80 percent sure are correct. I think this is the way to vary one's speech and learn new expressions.
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:LifeDeath wrote:I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too
Why is "must" incorrect here? As I remember, you told me there's two types of modality: epistemic and deontic modality. So what if "must" in this example represents an epistemic modality? It's like I think something should be, but never checked it myself. For example: "You must be very proud of your son? Are you?", "You must be that guy who's been trying to find me for two years? So if it is you, what do you want?"
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:LifeDeath wrote:it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.
I guess I overuse the progressive aspect. But what if when I'm saying this sentence, I imagine the very process of it? I mean how controllers ARE checking the tickets. Can it be possible to phrase it like that?
LifeDeath wrote:[*] Can I use "guys" to refer to a group of people regardless of their genders? Or only when I talk about men?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests