azhong wrote:(Some of the questions in my previous post are not responsed have not been answered yet. I have copied (better: repeated) them below. Any comments are helpful. Thank you in advance for your help.)
No problem.
Vijay wrote:And who prevented ("stopped" may be better) you from being cautious?
Q: Can you explain several synonyms:
keep, prevent, stop, hinder?
I'd say "can you explain the synonyms" or "...these synonyms" before giving a list like that.
And do can you suggest some other words that might suit work as well or even better here?
I would say that
keep is slightly less formal than
stop, which is less formal than
prevent, which is slightly less formal than
hinder. But perhaps what would be even better than using any of these would be to simply rephrase the sentence, e.g.
And who told you not to be cautious? or (even better, in my opinion)
And who told you to be so careless?Vijay wrote:The pain has been happening for mornings reoccurring repeatedly in the morning.
(Here I mean the twinge came up not only this morning but also
in mornings before.
Yes, I understood that, but thanks.
Thus,)
I would say "Hence:"
Q: Similarly, what's the difference between happen and occur?
Happen is less formal than
occur; also,
happen can only be used with events.
Occur can mean the same as
happen but also can mean 'to be present or found'. Pain is not an event, so it can't "happen"; however, it can be present, so it can "occur."
Also,
Q: In the Vijay's revision, I find that the re of reoccur and repeatedly seem to imply the same meaning to me.
I would say either "imply the same thing to me" or "have the same meaning to me."
So, how will you comment the sentences below?
()The pain has been occurring repeatedly in the morning.
()The pain has been reoccurring in the morning. (omitting repeatedly)
Both of these are fine.
()The pain has been happening repeatedly in the morning.
This does not work for the reason I mentioned before, i.e.
happen and
occur do not mean exactly the same thing.
linguoboy wrote:Couldn't you simply say "...he suddenly/immediately/reflexively asked himself"?
Yes, and I am glad to try. Thus how about the sentences below?
Whom are you blaming, sir? he reflexively asked himself. You cycle ride your bike every day, and, as a direct result, you gradually hurt your right knee gradually. Dose Does anyone force you to do that?......
He eventually managed to bring brought his left leg onto the same stair.
He eventually managed to bring... and
He eventually brought... are both acceptable here, but not
He eventually managed to bring brought... Well, well, need your tone to be so strict/harsh despite although your words seem correct? another he asked back.
I don't understand what you mean by "another he asked back." Do you mean the man in your story is talking to his inner voice? In that case, I would just say
he asked back (i.e. remove "another").
He stood up straight, with a smile on his face. He cleared his throat.Below I go on
to my questions of new sentences.
This inner talk sounded strict, and exactly by reason of it, his characteristic of playfulness was also roused for that exact reason, he chose to respond with satire.
Q: Can a characteristic be roused?
No, not as far as I know.
Or should I say a person is roused instead, as the in this sentence? (Note: a colon instead of a question mark is okay here, too).
()This inner talk sounded strict, and for that exactly reason, he was roused with by his characteristic of playfulness.
Yes, that seems to be okay.
Q: Which term is the best among for the/this/that exact reason?
I think either
this or
that is fine there.
Q: And which term is better between for that exact/very reason?
In my experience, native speakers of English are more likely to say
for that exact reason.
Q: Your comparison please among Please compare the following:
()The inner talk was hard/strict/harsh.
Hard does not make sense to me in this sentence.
Strict to me suggests that this man's inner voice was disciplining him but not necessarily criticizing him strongly.
Harsh, however, definitely means his inner voice is criticizing him strongly.
Q: Your comparison please between
His strictness also stirred up/aroused his also mercy.
Only
aroused works here.
Arouse simply means to stimulate feelings;
stir up means specifically to stimulate feelings of passion or make a person take action.
Q: Are there other better, shorter terms than characteristic?
I'm not sure. In the context of your story, I honestly think it would be better to omit the words "characteristic of" entirely.
His left leg came after He eventually managed to bring his left leg onto the same stair.
Q: I guess my problem here is the same: a man's leg can not come; a man can. Right?
Actually, "came" would have been fine if this sentence occurred just after the sentence where you talk about the other leg. "His right leg stepped down onto a staircase, and as a direct result, he slightly twisted his right knee. His left leg came later/afterwards onto the same stair." However, in your story, there's a lot that happens in between those two events. To say "his left leg came" after all of that happened sounds odd to me.
Q: I noticed that in your previous revisions leg is replaced with foot.
Really?
I can't seem to find where I suggested that you replace leg with foot. Could you show me where I said that? Thanks!
Should leg also be replaced here?
No.
(Explanation: To me, the existance use of eventually managed to
(By the way, you can also say "using
eventually managed to...").
imply seemingly seems to imply the man spent took a bit somewhat long time to move his left leg down with more difficulty (do you mean with more difficulty than the right leg?), and his moving slowly was then highly associated with the pain. Thus So,)
Q: would the twinge seem not so painful if eventually managed to was removed?
()He brought his left leg onto the same stair.
I guess that's a fair point. So yes, I think you could say that instead.
Q: To replace brought, how about merged/settled/set/placed/put?
()He merged/settled/set/placed/put his left leg onto the same stair.
I think only
placed works here. As I see it,
settled,
set, and
put would all require the preposition
on, not
onto.
Merge sounds odd in this context, because it suggests that the leg is becoming part of something else.
He stood straight, with a puzzlinged smile on his face.
Q: I can't
see figure out why it's
puzzled but not
puzzling. His smile
puzzled the reader;
Tthe reader
was puzzled by his smile. Thus it was a
puzzling smile to the reader, wasn't it? Is my context unclear, or is my understanding wrong?
Oh okay, I guess you're right. Maybe I was just confused by the story at that time. Also, I don't think I see the words "puzzling smile" very often.
He cleaned cleared his throat.
Q: I still need your explanation even after I've look up
clean and
clear in the dictionary.
They two seem indifferent Both of them seem to mean the same thing in this sentence to me
when being as verbs.
Cleared his throat (清喉咙) is simply the only one of these two expressions that makes sense in English;
cleaned his throat does not as far as I know.
Cleaned out his throat does, but it means something entirely different (maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would be 清洁喉咙 in Chinese).